The Calcutta High Court has refused to halt a criminal case involving serious allegations of forgery, cheating, and conspiracy over a disputed land deed dating back to 1963. The court made it clear that the matter needs a full police investigation and cannot be shut down at this early stage.
The order was passed by the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri of the Calcutta High Court while hearing a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings.
Read also:- Humiliation Is Not Justice: Allahabad High Court Strikes Down Placard Punishment for Student
Background of the Case
The case arose from a complaint filed in August 2024 by a private individual who claimed that his ancestral land was fraudulently transferred using a forged sale deed numbered 3022, allegedly executed on 7 April 1963.
Based on this deed, land transactions were carried out decades later. The petitioners, Pradip Agarwal and another, purchased portions of the land in 2023 after settling outstanding bank dues related to a loan taken by a third party.
They argued before the High Court that the dispute was purely civil in nature and that earlier civil litigation had already failed. According to them, continuing the criminal case would amount to harassment and abuse of legal process.
Petitioners’ Stand
Counsel for the petitioners told the court that a civil court had earlier dismissed a title suit challenging the same 1963 deed. Since no civil court had declared the deed to be forged, criminal prosecution on the same issue should not be allowed.
It was also argued that the petitioners were not parties to the original 1963 transaction and were bona fide purchasers who bought the land for valid consideration after clearing bank liabilities.
“The attempt here is to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute that has already been tested before a competent court,” the petitioners submitted.
Complainant’s Objection
The complainant strongly opposed the plea. He claimed that the alleged 1963 deed never existed in the form relied upon by the accused.
According to him, official records showed that deed number 3022 of 1963 related to a completely different property and different parties. He further pointed out that 7 April 1963 was a Sunday, raising doubts about the possibility of registration on that date.
The complainant alleged that forged seals and signatures of public officials were used and that the fake deed was knowingly presented before authorities and banks to obtain financial benefits.
“This is not just a private dispute over land. It involves alleged forgery of public records, which requires thorough police investigation,” his counsel argued.
Court’s Observation
After examining the records, Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee noted that the earlier civil suit was dismissed mainly because the plaintiffs failed to prove their case properly, not because the court had conclusively held the 1963 deed to be genuine.
The judge observed that the civil court had itself remarked that the deed placed before it was “shrouded in mystery” and had no clear connection with the suit property.
“The dismissal of a civil suit on technical or evidentiary grounds does not automatically wipe out the scope of criminal investigation,” the bench observed.
The court also reiterated the settled principle that while considering a plea to quash criminal proceedings, it cannot weigh evidence or decide whether the allegations are true.
“At this stage, the allegations in the complaint must be taken at face value,” the judge said, adding that the truth or falsity of those allegations can only be tested during investigation and trial.
Read also:- Supreme Court Clears Delay Hurdle in Land Compensation Appeals, Applies Limitation Act to
Decision of the Court
The High Court concluded that the complaint disclosed cognisable offences under the Indian Penal Code and that the allegations of forgery and conspiracy could not be brushed aside without investigation.
Holding that there was no abuse of legal process, the court dismissed the revision petition.
However, it directed the police to complete the investigation at the earliest, noting that the case had already been pending for a considerable period.
With this, CRR 339 of 2024 was dismissed, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue in accordance with law. Mr. Kunaljit Bhattacharjee
Case Title: Pradip Agarwal & Anr. vs State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case No.: CRR 339 of 2024
Decision Date: 29 January 2026
