Quashing Post-Charge-Sheet Proceedings Where Materials Create Only “Suspicion” (Not “Grave/Strong Suspicion”): Reaffirming the Criminal Court’s Filtering Role
1) Introduction
Case: SWAPAN KUMAR GHOSH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR (Calcutta High Court, Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction, C.R.R. 497 of 2021).
Date of decision: 02-03-2026.
Judge: Tirthankar Ghosh, J.
The revisional challenge concerned the criminal proceedings arising out of Ballygunge Police Station Case No. 145/18 dated 03.11.2018.
The petitioner, Swapan Kumar Ghosh, a university professor, faced prosecution rooted in alleged financial irregularities connected to an R&D project
in the Department of Jute and Fibre Technology, University of Calcutta.
The prosecution originated from a complaint by Prof. Asis Mukhopadhyay (Head of Department), after an official communication about a physical verification
of accounts/documents required authentication of signatures on certain vouchers (Nos. 48, 55, 56 & 59). It was alleged that the signatures on those vouchers
were denied by the purported signatory and were therefore forged, and that money had been withdrawn through impersonation.
After investigation, an initial charge-sheet (04.04.2023) and a supplementary charge-sheet (11.12.2025) were filed. The case also featured issues of
evidentiary reliability: missing/damaged cheques, multiple handwriting expert reports, and witness statements indicating who actually received the withdrawn cash.
2) Summary of the Judgment
The High Court quashed all further proceedings in Ballygunge Police Station Case No. 145/18, holding that continuation would amount to an
abuse of the process of law.
Central to the decision was the Court’s assessment that the materials collected—particularly the handwriting expert opinions and the statements of key witnesses
(C.S.W. 7, 8, and 10)—did not inspire confidence and, at best, created only suspicion rather than the grave/strong suspicion necessary to justify
prosecuting the petitioner through trial.
3) Analysis
A) Precedents Cited
i) P. Vijayan -versus- State of Kerala and Another ((2010) 2 SCC 398)
The Court relied on P. Vijayan -versus- State of Kerala and Another for the controlling test at the pre-trial filtering stage:
if two views are possible and the materials raise only suspicion (as distinct from grave suspicion), the judge may discharge the accused; and the judge is
not a “mere post office” for the prosecution.
Although P. Vijayan is typically discussed in the context of discharge/charge framing, the High Court used its principle functionally in the quashing context:
even after a charge-sheet, the court must still examine whether the case against the accused crosses the threshold of serious, trial-worthy suspicion.
ii) M.E. Shivalingamurthy -versus- CBI ((2020) 2 SCC 768)
The judgment notes that in a “series of judgments including M.E. Shivalingamurthy -versus- CBI”, the Supreme Court reiterated the same distinction:
where the material supports only suspicion and not grave suspicion, discharge is warranted.
By invoking this authority, the High Court strengthened the proposition that courts must actively prevent weak prosecutions from maturing into full trials,
especially when the evidentiary basis appears internally fragile.
iii) Pepsi Foods Ltd. -versus- Judicial Magistrate ((1998) 5 SCC 749)
The Court adopted Pepsi Foods Ltd. -versus- Judicial Magistrate to underline a broader rule-of-law safeguard: criminal law should not be set into motion as a matter of course.
The seriousness of criminal process—investigation and trial—demands judicial scrutiny of the material placed on record.
This precedent supported the High Court’s emphasis on the personal and professional ramifications for an accused (here, a senior academic) and the need for
courts to prevent unjustified continuation of criminal proceedings.
The High Court cited Dilawar Balu Kurane -versus- State of Maharashtra for the proposition that even in serious statutory contexts (there, Prevention of Corruption Act),
where the material discloses only suspicion rather than grave suspicion, it is in the interest of justice not to proceed.
The use of this precedent conveyed that the “grave suspicion” threshold is not diluted merely because allegations involve public funds or institutional accounts;
evidentiary sufficiency remains the pivot.
v) Tuhin Kumar Biswas alias Bumba -Versus - State of West Bengal (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2604)
The High Court quoted Tuhin Kumar Biswas alias Bumba -Versus - State of West Bengal on a systemic concern: the filing of charge-sheets and framing of charges
in matters where no strong suspicion is made out clogs the judicial system. The Supreme Court’s articulation of the police and criminal court as “initial filters”
was treated as directly relevant to the present case.
This citation gave the judgment a forward-looking institutional rationale: weak prosecutions waste scarce judicial resources and compromise fair process by
subjecting citizens to trials without a reasonable prospect of conviction.
B) Legal Reasoning
The High Court’s reasoning turned on the quality and direction of the incriminating material, not merely the fact that charge-sheets had been filed.
The Court examined whether the collected material rationally supported a trial-worthy inference against the petitioner.
i) Handwriting expert opinions: inconclusive as to the petitioner
-
Across the reports, the expert repeatedly stated “It was not possible to fix up authorship” of disputed writings from the petitioner’s specimen writings,
noting the specimen writings were “slow, conscious, not free and distorted” while disputed writings were “free and normal”.
-
The third report even suggested collecting “admitted contemporaneous signatures” for further development—signalling that, as it stood, the evidence was
inadequate to attribute disputed writings to the petitioner.
The Court treated these opinions as failing to provide a dependable forensic linkage between disputed instruments and the petitioner—thereby weakening the
foundation for “grave/strong suspicion”.
ii) Witness statements: money allegedly went to Debashis Shome
The High Court placed significant weight on the narrative emerging from prosecution witnesses:
-
C.S.W.7 Samir Biswas stated he encashed cheques on instructions of Debashis Shome and that the bank handed over the cash to Debashis Shome.
-
C.S.W.8 Noni Gopal Das similarly stated he encashed cheques on instructions of Debashis Shome and handed over the withdrawn sums to Debashis Shome.
-
C.S.W.10 Debashis Sinha (UCO Bank employee) provided a version consistent with the above.
Against that evidentiary backdrop, the Court concluded that the prosecution material did not coherently support a strong suspicion that the petitioner was the
author/beneficiary/architect of the allegedly forged withdrawals—especially when the witnesses themselves pointed to a different recipient of funds.
iii) Internal fragility of the prosecution record
The Court noted additional weaknesses: the bank’s statement that 13 cheques and vouchers could not be located due to damage from water logging.
While not determinative by itself, such loss of primary evidence deepened the court’s concern about the robustness of the prosecution case.
iv) Abuse of process conclusion
Applying the Supreme Court’s “suspicion vs grave/strong suspicion” framework, and the principle that criminal law is not to be invoked mechanically, the Court held
that continuing the proceeding would be an abuse of process, and therefore quashed it in exercise of revisional control over the proceeding.
C) Impact
-
Reinforced filtering obligation even after charge-sheet: The decision underscores that the filing of a charge-sheet does not immunize a weak case from
judicial termination where the record does not generate “grave/strong suspicion”.
-
Higher scrutiny of “forgery in institutional accounts” cases: Where withdrawals are shown (by prosecution witnesses) to have been made and delivered to a
particular person, prosecution strategy that diffuses responsibility onto others without clear linkage may fail at the threshold stage.
-
Systemic discipline consistent with Tuhin Kumar Biswas alias Bumba -Versus - State of West Bengal: The judgment aligns with the Supreme Court’s
warning that over-prosecution burdens courts and undermines fair process.
4) Complex Concepts Simplified
-
“Quashing”: A higher court terminates a criminal case/proceeding to prevent misuse of criminal process where the case lacks legal or evidentiary foundation.
-
“Suspicion” vs “Grave/Strong suspicion”:
- Suspicion = possibility or conjecture based on weak/incomplete material.
- Grave/Strong suspicion = a serious, coherent, and trial-worthy inference from the materials that the accused likely committed the offence.
-
Handwriting expert “authorship not possible”: This does not prove innocence, but it means the forensic evidence is inconclusive and cannot reliably
connect the disputed writing to the suspect on the materials provided.
-
“Abuse of the process of law”: Using criminal procedure in a way that is unfair, oppressive, or unjustified—such as pushing a person into trial without a
reasonable evidentiary foundation.
5) Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court’s decision in SWAPAN KUMAR GHOSH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR crystallizes a practical rule:
even post-charge-sheet, where the prosecution materials are self-contradictory or merely raise suspicion (not grave/strong suspicion), the continuation of proceedings can be quashed as an abuse of process.
Anchored in P. Vijayan -versus- State of Kerala and Another, M.E. Shivalingamurthy -versus- CBI, Pepsi Foods Ltd. -versus- Judicial Magistrate,
Dilawar Balu Kurane -versus- State of Maharashtra, and reinforced by the systemic warning in Tuhin Kumar Biswas alias Bumba -Versus - State of West Bengal,
the judgment emphasizes the judiciary’s duty to act as a meaningful filter—protecting individuals from unjustified trials and conserving judicial resources for cases
supported by a reasonable prospect of conviction.