In the High Court at Calcutta Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Present: The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay CRR 555 of 2025 Tamal Dhar Chowdhury @ Tamal Dhar Choudhury & Ors. versus The State of West Bengal & Anr. For the petitioner : Mr. Dibyajyoti Bhowmik : Mr. Manoj Saha For the State : Ms. Panchali Debsikder : Mr. Debobrata Rai : Ms. Madhushri Dutta Heard On : 01.07.2026 Judgment On : 08.07.2026 Rai Chattopadhyay, J. 1. The present criminal revision is filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceeding in GR Case No. 1600 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Cooch Behar, which is connected with Cooch Behar Sadar Women Police Station Case No. 191 of 2025 dated September 08, 2025 under Section 85 of the BNS, 2023, corresponding to Section 498A of the Indian Penal code. The petitioners are the husband and in-laws of the de facto complainant. 2. Against the petitioner, the de facto complainant has lodged inter alia in the FIR dated September 08, 2025 that, she has been subjected to torture precisely, mental torture by the petitioners in her matrimonial home since after her marriage. The de facto complainant has stated that, she was married to the petitioner No. 1 on January 02, 2023. At the time of marriage, on demand of the petitioner No. 1 and his family members, several marital gifts have been provided to the petitioners including valuable gold-made ornaments and valuable furniture. However allegedly, since after her marriage, the accused persons/petitioners herein jointly and with common intention started inflicting physical and mental torture upon the de facto complainant. They maintained her without providing food and very often subjected her with abusive language, abusive behavior and sometimes with physical assault. The petitioner has alleged that, on September 03, 2025, the accused persons/petitioners herein jointly and with common intention assaulted the de facto complainant and tried to commit her murder by strangulation. It is only after the same, the petitioner being not able to bear the torture any further, left her matrimonial home on September 08, 2025 at about 7:00 p.m. in the evening. 3. According to the FIR, on the following date that is, September 04, 2025, the petitioner No. 1/husband visited her paternal home and tried to persuade her to come back to the maternal home. As the de facto complainant was not agreeable to his proposal, it is alleged that the petitioner No. 1 has threatened the de facto complainant as well as her family members to lodge criminal cases against them and to put them in custody. Furthermore, it is alleged that on September 07, 2025 that is, the day before the FIR was lodged, all of the accused persons/petitioners came together at the paternal house of the de facto complainant and applied physical force in order to make her compelled to go to her maternal home along with them. Hence, the de facto complainant has filed the said FIR on September 08, 2025 seeking appropriate action. 4. Mr. Dibyajyoti Bhowmik has represented the petitioner. His first and most categorical point in argument is that, the allegation against the petitioners as made out in the FIR, is only general in nature and no specific allegation has been attributed to any of the accused persons individually to specify their particular role in commission of the offence as alleged. In this regard, Mr. Bhowmik has referred to the FIR as above and has submitted that the de facto complainant alleged about criminal activity of all the accused persons together in furtherance of their common intention. 5. However, the complainant has not been able to express the exact action of each of the accused person so as to specify the ingredient of offence as alleged against each of them. 6. Mr. Bhowmik, learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to the following judgment in this regard in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has inter alia held that vague, general and omnibus nature of allegation made out in the FIR is not sufficient to find a cognizable case made out against the accused persons, in order to justify investigation and trial in the said case. The judgment referred to is as follows: -  Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others versus State of Telangana and Another reported at (2025) 3 SCC 735 7. State is represented. It is however, submitted by the State that the petitioners should be sent for trial in so far as the nature of allegation against them is of sufficient gravity particularly, in view of the fact that the FIR has been lodged by the de facto complainant only within a period of about two and half years of her marriage. 8. Having heard both the learned counsels for the respective parties and having perused the materials on C.D., the Court’s decision in this case is as follows - 9. The law as to when a criminal proceeding would amount to only abuse of the process of the Court is now well-settled. The law was discussed in an authoritative manner in the case of State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 in which the Court has categorically provided the instances, though not in an exhaustive manner, as to when an FIR or a case instituted on the basis thereof, should be justified to be investigated on and sent for trial. Let the relevant portion thereof be quoted as hereinbelow: - “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code 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 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though 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 of 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. (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. Page 5 of 7 (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (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 concerned Act, 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 with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 10. In the later days, through various other judgments, the Constitutional Courts have discussed, narrated, expanded, and interpreted the scope as to when a criminal proceeding is justified. It is now classically settled that the FIR has to pronounce a cognizable case against the accused person. On the basis of the said basic principles, the Court has further iterated that specific allegation only particularly in case of an offence regarding matrimony that is, under Section 85 of BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 498A of the IPC) is required to be recorded in the FIR against each of the accused person in order to bring them within the four corners of the alleged offence. 11. The ingredients of offence are mentioned in the provision of law itself. Let Section 85 of BNS, 2023 be quoted as hereinbelow: - “85. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.” 12. It appears that the ingredients of offence are that the husband or the relative of him conduct separately or jointly such act of physical or mental or any other kind of torture, subjecting the woman to cruelty. Now through various judgments, the Supreme Court has promulgated the law that the ingredients of offence under the provision of law has to be specifically pleaded against the individual accused persons before it can be proved in the trial. The judgment as referred to on behalf of the petitioner in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra), the Supreme Court has been pleased to categorically hold that omnibus nature of allegation amounts to be vague and unsustainable. Therefore, an FIR containing such general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners in case under Section 85 of BNS, 2023 should not be counted as having brought on record any cognizable case against the petitioners to warrant action over the same by putting criminal justice system in motion. 13. In the present case, though very serious nature of allegation has been leveled in the FIR against the present petitioners, it is indeed that the de facto complainant has not been able to specifically indicate about the role of the individual accused persons or extent of their involvement. The de facto complainant is not specific about the dates of occurrence excepting the very recent one or two occasions. Furthermore, the de facto complainant has not been able to bring on record any medical corroborating evidence though have stated in the FIR about suffering physical torture and threat to life. 14. Considering all as above, it is found that the FIR shows the allegations made by the de facto complainant against the present petitioners are in the nature of vague and omnibus. There are allegations of physical and mental torture but without any sufficiency in terms of specific allegations or role attributed to the individual petitioners or the corroborating medical document. 15. The Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra) has held that mere reference of names of family members without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should not be entertained. In the same, the Supreme Court has also noted its concern about the increasing misuse of the beneficial provision under Section 498A of Cr.P.C. (now, Section 85 of BNS). Page 7 of 7 16. The FIR in the instant case is found to be non-specific in nature, containing general and omnibus nature of allegations against the accused persons/petitioners. None of their specific roles have been identified. How each of them has individually attributed to the activities which justify presence of the ingredients of alleged offence as discussed above, is conspicuously prima facie absent in the FIR dated September 8, 2025. A legal proceeding would not be justified on the basis of such a vague and non-specific First Information Report in accordance with the settled principles of law as discussed above. Furthermore, the allegations made against the petitioners in FIR thus do not even disclose any cognizable offence against any of the petitioners. For the reasons as above the criminal proceeding against the petitioners pursuant to the FIR dated September 8, 2025 is not maintainable and the FIR and all subsequent proceedings pursuant to the same are liable to be quashed. 17. On the premise as above, the instant criminal revision case bearing No. CRR 555 of 2025 is allowed directing as follows:-  GR Case No. 1600 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Cooch Behar connected with Cooch Behar Sadar Women Police Station Case No. 191 of 2025 dated September 08, 2025 under Section 85 of the BNS, 2023 corresponding to Section 498A of the Indian Penal code, is quashed and set aside. 18. Applications connected, if any, is disposed of. 19. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)