Observing that an Army “soldier of the nation” can’t be compelled to face a false criminal trial, particularly when he was serving in Imphal and not present at the alleged crime scene in 2023, the Calcutta High Court has quashed a case against him stemming from a property dispute with neighbours.Interestingly, Justice Uday Kumar noted the soldier was “physically present on active military duty in Imphal on the exact date and time of the alleged incident”.“This unimpeachable, authentic official record shatters the credibility of the complainant’s allegations against him. To compel a soldier of the nation to endure the ignominy and trauma of a criminal trial based on a demonstrably false and vindictive police report is an unconscionable abuse of the judicial process,” the court said on August 25.The matter pertained to disputes over property and other issues between neighbouring families, including the Army man’s. The warring factions filed a civil case and criminal complaints accusing each other of threats and physical intimidation, indicating to the court their “escalating hostility”.The criminal case resulted from a “bitter, localised neighbourhood dispute” between two opposing families over alleged illegal constructions, obstruction of peaceful entry and exit, and the right to use a narrow four-foot common passage and drainage.Also read | Man stabbed wife 49 times, tried to kill child, but escapes death sentenceThe high court noted that when the man was not able to “secure an immediate upper hand in the civil domain”, he filed a police complaint against the two brothers on December 6, 2023. The man alleged in his complaint that on October 5, 2023, at 6:30 AM, the brothers along with unknown associates physically assaulted him, demanded that his sister evacuate her property, looted cash amounting to Rs 7,500, and hurled dire threats.‘Physically impossible’However, the high court noted that there was a “glaring” flaw in the complaint which was discovered during the investigation. The observation as directed at the Army man whose commanding officer had certified his physical presence during “active military duty in Imphal” on the date and time of the alleged incident.Story continues below this adThe high court said that the FIR was drafted with “sweeping, reckless abandon, casually naming a serving soldier as a joint participant in an alleged early morning neighbourhood brawl in Hooghly on October 5, 2023”. The court noted that “it is physically impossible for an individual to inhabit two geographical coordinates thousands of miles apart simultaneously”.Observing that though the police had not included the soldier’s name in the final report, he continued to be named as a “co-petitioner” in the present plea, the court said. The order called it a “procedural anomaly” showing a “fatal defect in the initial police action of roping him into this prosecution”.Also read | Kept patient in general ward charged for ICCU, hospital ordered to refund Rs 2 lakhThe other accused, who was the Army man’s brother was found to be a local resident, saying eyewitness’ statements and injury reports indicated the possibility of a “scuffle” and “neighbourhood friction” between parties owing to the disputed common passage. The court, therefore, quashed the criminal proceedings against the Army man but allowed the case to continue against his brother.‘Coerce and pressurise’Advocates Gunjan Kumar Singh and Rupsa Maity, appearing for the brothers, argued that the criminal case was filed with the intention to “coerce the petitioners into withdrawing their legitimate civil claims” and to “pressurise them in ongoing property disputes”.Story continues below this adThe counsel contended that the police’s own investigation and the Indian Army’s official records established that one of the brothers was completely absent from the locale when the incident allegedly happened.Advocates Ramashis Mukherjee and Neel Chakraborty representing the state submitted that the case must go on against the other brother as a strong primary case regarding wrongful restraint and assault was there against him. Advocates Sayan Kanjilal and Kaustav Shome appeared for the man who had filed the complaint.