NARAYAN @ GHANASHYAM MONDAL ARUN KUMAR MUKHERJEE vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL — CRA/107/1993

Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 25th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: WBCHCA0097271993

Filing Number

CRA/9727/1993

Filing Date

12-May-1993

Registration No

CRA/107/1993

Registration Date

12-May-1993

Judge

Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

Coram

Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL SECTION

Decision Date

25-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 15-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NARAYAN @ GHANASHYAM MONDAL ARUN KUMAR MUKHERJEE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit BiswasView PDF

    The High Court at Calcutta acquitted the appellant of cheating charges under Section 417 IPC, setting aside the trial court's conviction. The court found fatal flaws: the victim (primary witness) died before trial, making the written complaint and her statement inadmissible as substantive evidence without her testimony; evidence showed the relationship was consensual between two adults, not fraudulently induced from inception; and there was insufficient proof of dishonest intention at the promise's inception, which is essential for cheating convictions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit BiswasView PDF

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    Criminal Appeal Hearing

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

  5. 05-Mar-2026

    Criminal Appeal Hearing

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

  6. 02-Mar-2026

    Criminal Appeal Hearing

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

  7. 27-Feb-2026

    Criminal Appeal Hearing

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

  8. 26-Feb-2026

    Criminal Appeal Hearing

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

  9. 25-Feb-2026

    Criminal Appeal Hearing

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

  10. 24-Feb-2026

    Criminal Appeal Hearing

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

  11. 10-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit BiswasView PDF

  12. 10-Dec-2025

    Criminal Appeal Hearing

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

  13. 09-Dec-2025

    Criminal Appeal Hearing

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

  14. 08-Dec-2025

    Criminal Appeal Hearing

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

  15. 05-Dec-2025

    Criminal Appeal Hearing

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

  16. 01-Dec-2025

    Criminal Appeal Hearing 1

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

  17. 19-Nov-2025

    Criminal Appeal Hearing

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

  18. 04-Nov-2025

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit BiswasView PDF

  19. 04-Nov-2025

    Criminal Appeal - 6

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

  20. 15-Sep-2025

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit BiswasView PDF

  21. 15-Sep-2025

    Criminal Appeal - 6

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

  22. 01-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

  23. 14-Aug-2025

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit BiswasView PDF

  24. 14-Aug-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

  25. 13-Aug-2025

    Hearing 6

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

  26. 12-Aug-2025

    Hearing 6

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

  27. 11-Aug-2025

    Hearing 6

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

  28. 08-Aug-2025

    Hearing 6

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

  29. 07-Aug-2025

    Hearing 2

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

  30. 17-Jun-2025

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit BiswasView PDF

  31. 17-Jun-2025

    Hearing 3

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

  32. 11-Apr-2025

    Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit BiswasView PDF

  33. 11-Apr-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  34. 12-May-1993

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRA/107/1993

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court at Calcutta acquitted the appellant of cheating charges under Section 417 IPC, setting aside the trial court's conviction. The court found fatal flaws: the victim (primary witness) died before trial, making the written complaint and her statement inadmissible as substantive evidence without her testimony; evidence showed the relationship was consensual between two adults, not fraudulently induced from inception; and there was insufficient proof of dishonest intention at the promise's inception, which is essential for cheating convictions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case