In the High Court at Calcutta Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Present: The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay CRR 364 of 2025 Ranjit Kami @ Baraily and Others versus The State of West Bengal & Anr. For the petitioner : Mr. Milindo Paul : Mr. Nabankur Paul : Mr. Bedashruti Bose : Mr. Subham Das : Mr. Deepsagar Dubraj : Mr. Bodhisatya Ghosh For the State : Mr. Avrojyoti Das, ld. APP : Mr. Atul Dong Heard On : 09.07.2026 Judgment On : 10.07.2026 Rai Chattopadhyay, J. 1. This is a criminal revision application filed by the four petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings in GR case No. 5237 of 2024, arising out of Mal Bazar Police Station case Number 608 of 2024, dated October 19, 2024, under Sections 85/117(2)/74/3(5) of the BNS 2023, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, now pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri. 2. According to the petitioners, the present proceeding is a result of malice and vengeance and is also devoid of any material to bring on record a cognizable case against the present petitioners. It is submitted further by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners have made in the first information report. If be taken on its face value would not make out any case against the petitioners. Hence, it has been submitted that in such circumstances, sending the petitioners to face the rigours of trial would amount to abuse of the process of Court in terms of the law settled. 3. Mr. Milindo Paul, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted further that the instant criminal case against the petitioners is a measure of retaliation and counterblast as against a prior FIR lodged by the petitioner number 2, against the de facto complainant, being Mal Bazar Police Station case number 396/2024 dated January 07, 2024 under sections 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 351(1) and 3(5) of the BNS 2023. Also, that the petitioners number 1 and 2 preferred an application under the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007.In an appeal in the said proceeding, the appellate forum has passed order, directing the de facto complainant and her husband to move away, leaving the house in which the petitioners number 1 and 2 are residing. Such order of the appellate forum has been complied with by the present opposite parties/the de facto complainant. 4. He has further referred to a judgement of this Court in Mrigesh Kanti Nath and Others versus State of West Bengal and Another reported at 2026 SCC Online Cal 4784, to buttress his argument about non-maintainability of a criminal proceeding based on malicious and vengeful first information report, which stands to be a counterblast and contains vague allegations. 5. State has been represented, CD is produced and strong objections have been raised as to the contention and prayer of the petitioners. 6. In spite of completed service, none appears for the opposite party No. 2 even after grant of sufficient opportunity. Hence the instant revision was taken up for hearing in her absence. Page 3 of 6 7. After carefully going through the record and CD and after considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties appearing, it is understood that the present de facto complainant is the daughter-in- law of the petitioners No.1 and 2. The de facto complainant has alleged in the FIR that she and her husband has been subjected to immense physical and mental cruelty by the present petitioners, concerning possession of the house where all of them used to reside and that they have been tried to be ousted from the house. 8. It is also pertinent to note that in a proceeding under provision of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007, in a statutory appeal, the appellate forum has directed vide order dated June 16, 2026, that the present de facto complainant should be evicted and vacate the rooms in the premises under lock and key, within the stipulated time. It has further been informed that the order as above has been duly complied with by the de facto complainant. 9. Hence, the cause of dispute between the parties is now settled for good, pursuant to the order of the appellate tribunal as mentioned above. 10. So far as alleged offence under sections 85, 117(2) or 74 of the BNS is concerned, this Court looks into the first information report again. However, that is only to find that omnibus and general nature of allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. It is pertinent to note the settled legal position in this respect. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar versus State of Bihar reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 has held that, this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-AIPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. Also that, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the appellant-accused, it would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial i.e. general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this Court in varied instances that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged. 11. Another judgment may be referred to, that is Geeta Mehrotra versus State of U.P. reported at (2012) 10 SCC 741 in which the SC has held that in the instant matter the factual position remains that the complaint as it stands lacks ingredients constituting the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellants who are the sister and brother of the complainant's husband and their involvement in the whole incident appears only by way of a casual inclusion of their names. Hence, it cannot be overlooked that it would be total abuse of process of law if we were to remand the matter to the High Court to consider whether there were still any material to hold that the trial should proceed against them in spite of absence of prima facie material constituting the offence alleged against them. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegations of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasise by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against the accused more so against the co- accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant wife. It is the well-settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing, especially in cases of matrimonial disputes whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of overimplication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding. 12. Therefore, the law requires specific averments to be made in the FIR as well as definitive materials to be required on record, in order to find ingredients of offence against the accused persons, which may justify the criminal proceeding against them and sending them for trial. In this case no such categorical materials are available against the petitioners to find existence of gradient of offence as above against any of them, even not at least on prima facie considerations. Also, that due compliance of the order of the appellate authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007, as stated above has sufficiently manifested baselessness of the allegations made against the petitioners in the first information report. It shall not be an exaggeration to say in view of the order of the appellate Authority as above that the instant criminal case by dint of the first information report as mentioned above, maybe an expressed outcome of malice and vengeanceof the de facto complainant. In either of the circumstances or all the circumstances together, if exist should render the entire criminal proceeding against the present petitioners as nugatory and unsustainable in the eye of law. 13. Hence, considering all as above, this Court finds that the instant proceeding being GR case No. 5237 of 2024, in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, is not maintainable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 14. Hence, the instant criminal revision being No. CRR 364 of 2025 is allowed with the following directions: - a. The proceedings in GR case No. 5237 of 2024, arising out of Mal Bazar Police Station case Number 608 of 2024, dated October 19, 2024, under Sections 85/117(2)/74/3(5) of the BNS 2023, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, now pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri shall stand as quashed and set aside. b. All connected orders and the First Information Report, charge- sheet and other connected materials shall stand quashed and set aside. 15. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)