Archive · 26 Aug 2026
Calcutta High Court Quashes Case Against Army Soldier
Two neighbouring families were arguing about property and a shared passage.
One family filed a criminal complaint after the disagreement became worse.
The complaint accused an Army soldier and his brother of assault and theft.
But military records showed that the soldier was serving in Imphal at the exact time of the alleged incident in Hooghly.
The court said he could not be in both places at once.
It therefore cancelled the case against the soldier.
The court did not cancel the case against his brother.
The brother’s case will continue because evidence suggested he may have been involved in a local fight.
The Calcutta High Court quashed criminal proceedings against an Army soldier accused in a neighbourhood property dispute.
The soldier’s commanding officer certified that he was on active duty in Imphal when the alleged assault occurred in Hooghly.
The court said official records made it physically impossible for him to have participated in the October 5, 2023 incident.
The dispute involved alleged illegal construction, obstruction, and use of a narrow common passage and drainage.
Proceedings against the soldier’s brother will continue because statements and injury reports indicated a possible local scuffle.
- Who
- The Calcutta High Court, an Army soldier, his brother, neighbouring families, and the state prosecution.
- What
- The court quashed criminal proceedings against the soldier but allowed the case against his brother to continue.
- When
- The alleged incident occurred on October 5, 2023, and the court issued its order on August 25; the complaint was filed on December 6, 2023.
- Where
- The alleged incident took place in Hooghly, while the soldier was serving on active duty in Imphal.
- Why
- Military records showed the soldier was elsewhere when the alleged crime occurred, while evidence supported continuing the case against his brother.
Court and Petitioners’ Position
Complainant and State’s Position
Alleged role of the soldier
Court and Petitioners’ Position
The soldier’s lawyers argued that official Army records proved he was absent from the location, and the court found it physically impossible for him to have participated in the incident.
Complainant and State’s Position
The complaint named the soldier as a joint participant in the alleged assault and threats, although the police later did not include his name in the final report.
Purpose of the criminal case
Court and Petitioners’ Position
The soldier’s lawyers said the case was intended to pressure the brothers into withdrawing legitimate civil claims in the property dispute.
Complainant and State’s Position
The state argued that the case should continue against the soldier’s brother because there was a strong preliminary case involving wrongful restraint and assault.
Evidence against the brother
Court and Petitioners’ Position
The petitioners characterized the dispute as an escalating neighbourhood conflict connected to the shared passage and drainage.
Complainant and State’s Position
The court found that eyewitness accounts and injury reports indicated a possible scuffle and neighbourhood friction involving the brother.
- Court
- Calcutta High Court
- Judge
- Justice Uday Kumar
- Alleged incident
- October 5, 2023, at 6:30 AM
- Soldier’s location
- Imphal, on active military duty
- Complaint filed
- December 6, 2023
- Property dispute
- Alleged illegal construction, blocked access, and use of a four-foot common passage and drainage
- Outcome
- Case quashed against the soldier; proceedings continued against his brother