Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ratan Kumar Das @ Ratan Das & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Another on 9 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
C.R.R. 2676 of 2021
Ratan Kumar Das @ Ratan Das & Ors.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Another
For the Petitioners : Ms. Monika Kalra, Adv.
Mr. Shatadru Lahiri, Adv.
Mr. Wasim Akram, Adv.
Mr. Shantam Gulati, Adv.
Mr. Saswata Tripathi, Adv.
Ms. Prerana Vishwas, Adv.
For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Saibal Mondal, Adv.
Ms. Sonali Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Sarthak Mondal, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Imran Ali, Adv.
Ms. Debjani Sahu, Adv.
Heard on : 20.06.2025
Judgment on : 09.07.2025
2
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:
1. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are the brothers-in-law of the
complainant/opposite party no. 2 and petitioner no. 2 is the wife of
one Nukul Das, who is the brother-in-law of the
complainant/opposite party no. 2. They have filed revisional
application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (in short 'CrPC') for seeking quashing of the proceeding being
G.R. Case No. 647/2020 arising out of Amdanga Police Station Case
No. 160/2020 dated 01.04.2020 under Section 498A of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 as well as the Charge Sheet being Charge Sheet No.
346/2020 dated 30.06.2020 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and all orders passed therein, pending before the Learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24 Parganas.
2. The factual matrix, giving rise to filing of present Criminal
Revisional application, is that a complaint has been lodged by
Opposite Party No.2, Tapati Das against her husband and in-laws
alleging that she married Joydeb Das according to Hindu Rites and
Customs. Since after marriage, she was subjected to torture both
mentally and physically by her husband and in-laws. On 31.03.2020,
at about 12.00 hrs., the accused persons abused her in filthy
language and when she raised objection, they assaulted the
complainant and drove her away from her matrimonial house.
3
3. On the basis of said complaint, an FIR was lodged being
Amdanga Police Station Case No. 160/2020 dated 01.04.2020 under
Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against her husband and
the present petitioners and investigation was initiated.
4. Upon completion of investigation, Charge Sheet being Charge
Sheet No. 346/2020 dated 30.06.2020 under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been submitted against husband and
the present petitioners.
5. The specific case of the present petitioners is that they are
innocent and are in no way connected with the alleged offence. They
reside separately and do not share common mess with the
complainant and her husband and were not involved in their day-to-
day matrimonial life.
6. It is further contended that the complainant has also filed a
complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 being Case No. C/684/2020 before the Competent Court
only against her husband. None of the present petitioner were
arraigned as parties and no allegation made against them in the said
proceedings. The petitioners alleged that the allegations levelled in
the written complaint against them are out and out false. Hence, this
application for quashing of the proceedings.
4
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
vehemently argued and submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has
falsely implicated the petitioners without disclosing the essential
ingredients as required to establish an offence under Section 498A of
the IPC and further the allegations levelled against the present
petitioners are general, vague and failed to attribute any specific role
of the petitioners with regard to the allegations of cruelty.
8. It was further submitted that during investigation, no
substantial evidence was collected against the present petitioners to
implicate them for an offence punishable under Section 498A of the
IPC. In absence of such substantial evidence, the accusations of the
de-facto complainant apparently found concocted, fabricated and
with mala fide intention only to harass the petitioners though they
are no way involved in her day to day matrimonial life. Therefore,
allowing such proceeding to be continued in absence of any
substantial evidence against the present petitioners would
tantamount to abuse of process of law and for securing the ends of
justice, the proceeding may be quashed otherwise petitioners would
be highly prejudice. Learned counsel has placed reliance of
judgments as under: -
5
i. Tabrez Khan Alias Guddu and Ors. Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Anr.1;
ii. Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Ors. Vs. State of
Telangana and Anr.2.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 2:
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party
no. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the proceeding
and further submitted that from the date of marriage, the husband
and her in-laws including the petitioners inflicted physical and
mental torture upon her and finally, they have assaulted and forcibly
driven out from the matrimonial home along with her 11-months'
child. Though, the marriage took place in the year 2017, she
refrained from lodging any FIR initially in the hope that the situation
will improve after passage of time. However, when they have
assaulted and the situation has not been improved rather aggravated
when it turn to assault, she has compelled to lodge complaint against
the present petitioners and her husband. Therefore, this case is
required to be tried by the Learned Trial Court for proper
adjudication. Even after investigation, a prima facie case has been
established against the present petitioners under Section 498A of the
1
(2019) 4 SCC 615;
2
(2025) 3 SCC 735.
6
IPC and when the evidence was collected during the investigation,
this Court may not embark upon the evidence without trial.
Therefore, the Revisional application is liable to be dismissed.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State also
concurred the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the opposite party no. 2 and further submitted that the FIR
disclosed the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section
498A of the IPC. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged and, subsequently,
after investigation, it appears prima facie case against all the accused
persons under Section 498A of the IPC. During investigation,
statements were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC and from
perusal of the Section 161 statements; it reveals that there are
sufficient materials against the present petitioners. Accordingly, the
Revisional application is liable to be dismissed.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS BY THIS COURT:
11. Considering the arguments and submissions made by the
parties and on perusal of the materials available in the case diary and
documents annexed with the Revisional application, this Court finds
that the opposite party no. 2 alleged for inflicting mental and physical
cruelty upon her by the accused persons. However, this Court does
7
not find any specific reason for her tortured by her in laws from the
very beginning of her marriage.
12. It further appears from the record that the
complainant/opposite party no. 2 has filed another proceeding under
Section 12 of the PWDV Act, 2005 after lodging FIR and same is
pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court at Barasat
only against her husband. No allegation was made or any averment
made in the application regarding domestic violence by the present
petitioners in any manner. She has restricted the allegations of
domestic violence only against her husband. Though, her allegation is
that she was inflicted torture by all the accused persons physically
and mentally and finally driven out her from her matrimonial home.
During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer collected
the Injury Report. A perusal of the said report reveals that the
allegations of assault made against the present petitioners appear to
be an attempt to falsely implicate them, without assigning any
specific or individual role to any of the present petitioners herein.
13. From the perusal of the FIR and the statements recorded
under Section 161 during investigation, it reveals the allegations are
general, omnibus and lacking in particulars. No details have been
given with regard to the mode and manner of either mental or
physical torture by the Petitioners. In such situation, a person cannot
8
be permitted to face the trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, time and
again, reiterated that the proceedings against any accused should not
be allowed to continue unless and until there is specific allegation
against the accused.
14. When there is no specific role attributed or allegation levelled
against the particular accused and no details regarding date, time
and manner of such physical assault has been mentioned, then such
proceeding should be nipped in the bud. Otherwise, the accused
would be greatly prejudiced. Continuation of such criminal
proceeding would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice.
15. It would be apposite to refer a recent decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Ors. Vs. State of
Telangana and Anr. where the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically
dealt with the case involving offence under Section 498A of IPC and
whether the same are attracted to vague allegations raised by the
complainant/opposite party no. 2/wife and finally observed as follows
in paragraph nos. 27 and 30 as under: -
"27. A mere reference to the names of family members
in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial
dispute, without specific allegations indicating their
active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a
well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience,
that there is often a tendency to implicate all the
9
members of the husband's family when domestic
disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such
generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported
by concrete evidence or particularised allegations
cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts
must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse
of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid
unnecessary harassment of innocent family members.
In the present case, Appellants 2 to 6, who are the
members of the family of Appellant 1 have been living
in different cities and have not resided in the
matrimonial house of Appellant 1 and Respondent 2
herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal
prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the
process of the law in the absence of specific
allegations made against each of them.
30. The inclusion of Section 498-A IPC by way of an
amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on
a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring
swift intervention by the State. However, in recent
years, as there have been a notable rise in
matrimonial disputes across the country,
accompanied by growing discord and tension within
the institution of marriage, consequently, there has
been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like
Section 498-A IPC as a tool for unleashing personal
vendetta against the husband and his family by a
wife. Making vague and generalised allegations
during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinised, will
10
lead to the misuse of legal processes and an
encouragement for use of arm-twisting tactics by a
wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken
to invoke Section 498-A IPC against the husband and
his family in order to seek compliance with the
unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this
Court has, time and again, cautioned against
prosecuting the husband and his family in the
absence of a clear prima facie case against them.”
16. This Court is conscious of the settled legal position that the
FIR is not expected to be an encyclopaedia which indicates each and
every minute’s details. However, during investigation allegations
should be corroborated by substantial evidence. Upon perusal of the
FIR it shows that the allegations made by the complainant are that
the complainant got married to Joydeb Das according to Hindu Rites
and Customs. Since after marriage, she was subjected to torture both
mentally and physically by her in-laws. Finally, on 31.03.2020 at
about 12.00 hrs. the accused persons abused in filthy languages and
when she raised objection, they assaulted the complainant and drove
her away from her matrimonial house. Such allegation has been
made against all the accused including the present petitioners in
single averment. No specific role attributed against the petitioners
with regard to the allegations or incident of physical and mental
11
cruelty. No date, time or manners of inflicting such torture have been
mentioned. Mere vague, omnibus and bald allegations have been
made against the present petitioners with regard to physical and
mental torture therefore it does not constitute offence punishable
under Section 498A of the Indian Penal code. Even in the subsequent
proceeding initiated by the opposite party no. 2/wife under Domestic
Violence indicates she made only a party to her husband without
adding petitioners as party. Not a single allegation was made against
any other in-laws in the said proceedings. So, it indicates whatever
allegations made in the FIR appears to be vague and omnibus only to
harass the petitioners for her illegal purpose which led to this Court
the proceeding initiated against the present petitioners, is only for
harassing them with an ulterior motive. Therefore, this Court holds
that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the present
petitioners would result in an abuse of process of law.
17. Upon perusal of the statements recorded under Section 161
of CrPC, this Court finds that no specific allegations or role
mentioned by the witnesses in respect of the incident of assault
against the present petitioners. Incident took place on 31st March,
2020. None of the witnesses stated the reasons for her torture either
physically or mentally after her marriage. None of the witnesses have
also stated about any demand of dowry. She has narrated about the
12
incident that took place on 31st March, 2020 where she was
assaulted and was treated in Barasat District Hospital. Injury report
indicated nothing against the present petitioner.
18. After careful scrutiny of the materials available in the case
diary, this Court does not find any sufficient or cogent evidence
against the present petitioners. Even if, for the sake of argument,
these proceedings were to be continued, the conviction of petitioners
appears bleak and remote. To secure the ends of justice, the
proceedings are deserved to be quashed under the inherent power
granted under Section 482 of the CrPC insofar as the petitioners are
concerned.
19. We should not forget at this moment the well-settled law
declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajanlal & Ors.3 which has laid down the
basic points for consideration pursuant to which a complaint may be
entertained in accordance with law before a Court of law. The Hon’ble
Court has narrated down as to when the extraordinary power of this
Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
may be espoused. Relevant portion thereof may beneficially be quoted
herein below: –
3
AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 604: 1992 Supp. (1) Supreme Court Cases 335
13“102. This Court in the backdrop of interpretation of
various relevant provisions of CrPC under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in
a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India or the inherent powers under
Section 482 CrPC gave the following categories of cases
by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus,
this Court made it clear that it may not be possible to
lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
and to give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised:
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of
a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code.
14
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case against the
accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the Act
concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the Act concerned,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and
15with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.”
20. In the light of above discussions made by this Court and in
view of observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
above cited judgment, this Court fully satisfies that this case falls in
the Categories mentioned in 1, 3, and 5 above.
21. Accordingly, CRR No. 2676 of 2021 is, thus, allowed.
Connected applications, if any, are also, thus, disposed of.
22. Consequently, the proceeding being G.R. Case No. 647/2020
arising out of Amdanga Police Station Case No. 160/2020 dated
01.04.2020 under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as
the Charge Sheet filed being Charge Sheet No. 346/2020 dated
30.06.2020 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Barasat, North 24 Parganas is hereby quashed and all orders passed
therein in connection with the said proceeding are hereby set aside
insofar as the present petitioners are concerned.
23. This Court, however, makes it clear that the complaint
against the husband of the opposite party no. 2, namely, Joydeb Das
will be decided on its own merits by the Learned Magistrate
concerned independently and in accordance with law without
16
influencing by any observations made by this Court because this
Court does not examine the case of her husband who is neither the
party to this proceeding and nor has he filed any revision petition to
challenge the complaint and charge sheet filed against him.
24. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Learned Court
below for information.
25. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
26. Case Diary, if any, be returned to the learned counsel for the
State.
27. Parties shall act on the server copies of this Judgment
uploaded on the website of this Court.
28. Urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied
for, is to be given as expeditiously to the parties on compliance of all
legal formalities.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J)
P. Adak (P.A.)
[ad_1]
Source link