IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:- HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS. CRR 4694 OF 2023 UTTAM MALLICK & ORS. VS. SRI SOUMEN SINHA For the Petitioners : Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Arindam Jana, Adv. Mr. Biswajit De, Adv. Mr. Subhajit De,Adv. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Ramasish Mukherjee, Adv. Reserved on : 10.07.2026 Judgement on : 17.07.2026 Uploaded on : 17.07.2026 CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.:- 1. This revisional application has been filed for quashing the criminal proceeding in the complaint case against the petitioners having C.R case number 170/2023 under Section 323/325/379/417/420/494/506/34 of Indian penal Code, 1860 now pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court Paschim Mednipore . Page 2 of 12 2. Heard the submissions of the Learned Advocates representing the parties. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner no.2 is aged about 78 years, petitioner no. 10 is 64 years, petitioner no. 13 is 68 years, petitioner no. 14 is about 61 years, Petitioner no. 15 is 73 years and petitioner no. 16, aged about 69 respectively, who are the oldest persons according to their age and unnecessarily dragged into this false complaint where they are included as an accused persons. The petitioner number 1, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 11 having their profession of cultivation and petitioner no.3, 8 and 12 are all housewives. The petition no. 17 is an unemployed lady residing with her parents’ house. Petitioner no. 7 is the government employee working under the West Bengal police service. 3. The marriage between the petitioner no. 17 and the complainant Opposite Party held on 21.11.2016. The dispute and differences arose between them after few days of marriage and she was subjected to physical and mental torture, as a result of which she had to be admitted in Chandrakona Rural Hospital and referred to Mednipore Medical College and Hospital in the year 2017. She was driven out by the opposite party from her matrimonial house and she had to lodge a complaint before the protection officer, Midnapore, social welfare Section under Section 4 and 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and prayed for the relief under Section 18, 19, 20, 22 and(2) of the said Act. After that the report was sent by the protection officer and the petitioner number 17 also submitted a complaint before the Police station on 8.2.2019 through speed post and thereafter made complaint before Superintendent of police, Paschim Medinipur but no steps were taken by the State Police Authorities. 4. Having no alternative one M.P case no. 148 of 2019 was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Mednipore under156 (3) CPC and an order was passed by the learned court on 19.3.2019 forwarding the said application to be treated as F.I.R . Accordingly the case started under Section 498A/323/325/307/406/506/354A/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the Opposite party and others. On completion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted in respect of that case as well as under Section 3 and 4 of D.P Act on 19.8.2021. After that by way of mutual understanding between the parties, a joint application for mutual divorce was filed in the court of the Learned District Judge but after understanding that petitioner 17 was trapped by opposite party by way of fraudulent act, she did not appear and it was dismissed on 13.1.2021. After that a divorce proceeding was filed by petitioner against the Opposite party but due to mistake of the learned advocate, it was filed under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was required to be filed under section 27 of the special marriage act, 1954. Accordingly, petitioner number 17 was suggested not to appear and that divorce case was dismissed for default by an order dated 26.8.2022. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that since she lodged the F.I.R against opposite party, he filed a Writ petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer was made for handing over petitioner no. 17 from the custody of Respondent no. 2 to 8 who are the petitioner no. 1 to 5 and 7 herein. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Division Bench on 21.11.2022. The petitioner no. 17 also filed the Mat. suit no. 424 of 2023 for divorce against the opposite party under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and the suit was fixed on 9.1.2024 for reconciliation. It is the further case of the petitioner that since the petitioner no. 17 that after failure in the Writ petition filed by opposite party, he filed the instant complaint against the petitioners to harass them with false and fabricated allegations. 6. The allegations levelled against the present petitioners are that after the marriage was solemnised, according to Hindu rights and customs with the youngest daughter of Shri Uttam Mullick, Peau Mullick they started their conjugal life, but after few days on various occasions, Shri Uttam Mullick, the father-in-law borrowed ₹50,000 as well as 30,000 and 10,000 respectively, from him, taking advantage of his simplicity and showing various excuses. After that, he also asked for ₹40,000 from him for his elder daughter’s medical expense. It was further alleged that petitioner no. 17 forced him to give such amount to aid her father, though she became hesitant in performing her duties as a legally married wife. On being protested by the Opposite Party, he was threatened to be put behind bar in a false case. According to the Opposite Party, he got the petition numberer 17 admitted to P.T.T.I College DLDA by investing ₹40,000 which was located at Kharagpur, despite that on 18.11.2017, she quietly left his house as well as left for her matrimonial home after taking all her gold and silver ornaments and other jewelleries from her mother’s vault. According to the complainant from his father-in-law, he came to learn about the ill health of his wife and immediately sought for better medical assistance and shifted her to Bandipur Medical College Hospital by providing all sorts of financial assistance. However, no disease was diagnosed in Medinipur, and hence he suggested taking her to Kolkata for better medical support, which was not accepted. After his wife returned from hospital, her family members refused to return her back. 7. It is further alleged that the petitioner no. 17 and her family members conspired by proposing to get a decree of divorce by mutual consent by both sides to which he agreed and signed on the agreement thinking of a peaceful life and the Mat suit being 329 of 2019 was filed in exchange of ₹2, 50, 000 advanced to Medinipur Bar Association .It was further decided that the false case of domestic violence will be withdrawn by her but he got betrayed as on the final day of hearing the wife did not turn up and the case got dismissed. After that another Divorce suit was filed by his wife, but on the final hearing, she was absent and that case also got dismissed. Accordingly, he filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking the whereabouts of his wife and the police of Chandrakona Road bit office, was directed to order his wife to appear before the court that is to be assisted by police, but due to non-appearance of his wife, the police submitted a report that his wife has no relation with him for last seven years, and she voluntarily disagree to keep any kind of relation with him. Later he came to learn that his wife has married Subhash Roy and that marriage took place without obtaining any decree of Divorce and all the petitioners No. 1 to 16 have aided and advised her for the . He also came to learn that his wife gave birth to a baby girl on 31.10.2022, and she has fraudulently changed her name in the Aadhaar card from Peau Sinha to Peau Mullick. Subsequently another matrimonial proceeding has been filed by the wife under Section 27 of Special Marriage Act to set herself free from the liability of prior marriage with this Opposite Party and accordingly this complaint was lodged since he was cheated, and threatened by the petitioners. 8. The Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the very first day that is on 10.7.2023 took cognizance against all the accused petitioners and transferred the case record to the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court for hearing and disposal. On 9.8.2023 the complaint /Opposite Party was examined under section 200 of Cr.P.C and on 9.8.2023, the Learned Judicial Magistrate passed an order for issuance of process against the accused persons under section 420/494/34 of the Indian Penal Code and fixed the date on 7.10.2023. 9. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the allegations levelled against the present petitioners are absolutely false and fabricated and has made maliciously and with an intended purpose to take revenge since the present petitioner number 17 has lodged the complaint against the opposite party. In the decision of Haji, Iqbal alias Bala S.P.O.A vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others1 as relied upon on behalf of the petitioner, It was held by the Hon’ble apex court that an FIR can be quashed when the allegations made in the complaint if 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 and when the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It was further 1 (2024)15 SCC 776 held that, FIR should also be quashed when 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 with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 10. In the decision of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others the State of Telangana and another2 as relied on behalf of the petitioners the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while expressing their concern regarding growing tendency as to misuse of provision of 498A of the Indian penal code was of the view that a mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of matrimonial dispute without specific allegations, indicating their active involvement should be nip in the bud. It is a well- recognised fact born out of Judicial experience, that there is often tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arrived out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations, without supported by concrete evidence or particularized 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. 11. In the present case complaint under section 498A was lodged by the petitioner no. 17 against the present Opposite party and his family members. However, the principal regarding the reference of the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute is equally applicable in this instant case. In the decision of Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy versus State 2 (2025) 3 SCC 735 of Andhra Pradesh and other3 the specific plea was taken for quashing of the criminal proceeding, essentially on the ground that those are manifestly frivolous or instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, the duty which court owes in such circumstances to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was also observed that in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the court must look into many other attending circumstances, emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need to be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines . It was further held that the court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C or Article 226 of the Constitution did not restrict itself only to the stage of a case, but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in court of investigation. In that case, multiple F.I.R were registered over the period of time and the Hon’ble Apex court observed that in such circumstances, the registration of multiple F.I.R assumed importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged. 12. In the instant case on a close of the complaint itself, it is evident that the complaint was lodged in respect of incidents occurred since after marriage that is on and from 18.11.2017, when on various occasions, the opposite party lend some amounts to his father-in-law and other in-laws at the request of his wife, that is the petitioner number 17 and he spent some good amount of money towards higher education of his wife and that too in the year 2017 and 2018 In addition he also spent money towards the medical expenses of 3 (2024) 12 SCC 175 his wife in the year 2018, despite that with false and concocted allegations the wife filed the complaint against him before Protection officer in the year 2018 as well as lodged complaint before Kotwali PS under Section 498A of IPC, did not appear before the court despite filing a mutual divorce as well as in the subsequent matrimonial suit and later on came to learn that the petitioner no. 17 during subsistence of their marriage entered into a second marriage and has given birth to a baby girl in the year 2022, and another divorce proceeding has been filed in the month of May 2023 against the opposite party. Curious enough on the basis of these nature of allegations, where no ingredients are visible to constitute any of the offences, the learned Magistrate took cognizance without considering the absence of specific details or description of the incident to substantiate the allegations .The Learned magistrate further failed to consider absence of any cogent reason for the delay of 5 to 6 years and failure to comply section 154(1) of CrPC in lodging such complaint .The case was transferred for appearance and S.A before the learned transferee court and the said court also, after examining the complainant prima facie satisfied about the sufficient materials and directed to issue process .On examination during S/A it is glaringly visible that he only stated about his grievances for the number of proceedings filed against him by the petitioner no 17 at the instigation of her brother in law who is a police officer but nowhere he alleged about any assault ,cheating ,theft or any other allegations against the petitioners. 13. The Learned Magistrate miserably failed to consider even after the opposite party was examined during S/A about the involvement of all the 17 petitioners when there were hardly any instances or allegations made against any of them. It is settled proposition of law that issuance of summons is a serious matter and the Supreme Court has cautioned the courts before issuance of Summons, at the time of cognizance to be satisfied about the existence of prima facie materials to constitute the offences as alleged. It was held in the case of Uma Shankar Jadhav and another versus state of Uttar Pradesh through Chief Secretary4 taking note of Ashok Chaturvedi and others versus Shitul H. Chanchani & amp Anr.5 “that summoning of an accused is a serious matter which affects liberty and dignity of the individual concerned. Judicial intervention under section 482 Cr.P.C to weed out vexatious proceedings is of pivotal importance in order to protect individuals from un telling harassment and misery, and to ensure unmerited prosecution, do not crowd, overflowing, dockets of criminal quotes and yield space for deserving cases. Faced with the agony of a lame prosecution, it is of little solace to litigant to be told that inner powers are shut out as he is entitled to approach the trial court and pray for discharge. The inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of process of court is much wider in amplitude than the discharge powers and cannot be whittled on the play of existence of such remedy.” 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions held that the phenomenon of false implications by way of general omnibus allegations in court of matrimonial disputes is not uncommon to the court and in most of the cases it 4 2025 INSC 653 5 (1998) 7 SCC 698 was lodged by the wife roping the husband and all other in-laws and family members of the husband in vague and general allegations lacking specific role particulars, and are to bequest in order to prevent the abuse of process of law. The same principal is equally applicable in the instant case and as the entire allegations as discussed above clearly demonstrate that no materials are found either describing the role of the 17 accused persons or any specific allegations against them. It goes without saying that being frustrated by the repeated number of proceedings/complaint lodged against the petitioner and his family members by the petitioner no. 17, the wife of the Opposite Party, the petitioner lastly took the shelter of the court by lodging this complaint ,roping all the petitioners there in since he felt that the entire family conspired against him and he was cheated but the law does not permit the court be used as a platform to express the personal vendetta . 15. According to the celebrated decision of State of Haryana vs Bhajanlal6 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered in detail the scope of the High Court powers under section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and identified certain cases where the High court can exercise its inherent power to quash he proceeding and the clause (1) (5) and (7) of the said paragraph 102 of the decision squarely applies in the present case which are as follows; (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 . 6 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (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 and (7)“where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge” 16. Therefore on the basis of the entire facts and circumstances and the law laid down as discussed this court is satisfied that the Complaint completely lacks any ingredients to constitute any of the offences as alleged and the Learned Magistrate failed to apply his judicial mind while passing order for issuance of summons against the petitioner 1 to 17 and hence is of the view that to allow this proceeding further would amount to gross abuse of the process of law. Hence the same is liable to be quashed . 17. Accordingly this C.R.R No.4695 of 2023 is hereby allowed. The entire proceeding pending against the petitioners being C.R case number 170/2023 under Section 323/325/379/417/420/494/506/34 of Indian penal Code, 1860 is hereby quashed . All connected applications are hereby disposed of. 18. Urgent certified copy Urgent of the order if applied for be provided to the parties upon observance of all necessary requirements. [CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.]