March 10, 2025 38 ARDR CRR 2921 of 2024 Aarati Sur (Banerjee) @ Arati Banerjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & anr. Adv. Satadru Lahiri, Adv. Gaurav Purkayastha, Adv. Sushmita Chowdhury, …for the petitioner. Adv. Atanu Das, …for the op. no.2. Adv. Debasish Roy, Ld. PP, Adv. Arijit Ganguly, Adv. Sreemayi Roy, …for the State. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. Heard learned counsels for the parties. Perused the Case Diary. The petitioner who is the married sister-in-law (ja) of the private opposite party seeks quashing of proceedings being GR 488 of 2014 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Barasat, North 24 Parganas. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a General Diary lodged by the private opposite party before Barasat Police Station on 14th January, 2024 wherein she has implicated only her husband. No allegation is found in the said General Diary against the petitioner. On 30th January, 2024, the private opposite party filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat which led to the present case. The application was not supported by an affidavit and provision of Section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not complied with prior to filing of the application. Learned counsel has taken this Court to the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of 2 Criminal Procedure which do not disclose any torture or cruelty inflicted upon the private opposite party in her matrimonial home. Though some allegation may have been made against the husband who is not before this Court, there is no material whatsoever against the petitioner. According to learned counsel, no prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner. Learned counsels for the State and the private opposite party oppose the prayer. It appears from the General Diary lodged by the private opposite party before Barasat Police Station on 14th January, 2014 that the petitioner is not named therein. The application under Section 156(3) of the Code is not supported by an affidavit and there is nothing on record to suggest that provision laid down under Section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code was complied with prior to filing of the application. In the application, general and omnibus allegations have been made against the petitioner and no specific overt act has been attributed to her. In course of investigation, statements of witnesses have been recorded by the investigating agency under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The statements refer to a distance developing between the private opposite party and her husband and there is no specific allegation against the petitioner in any of the statements. No prima facie material as alleged has transpired against the petitioner either in the complaint or in course of investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the authority in Geddam Jhansi & another vs. State of Telangana and others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that in a case where the complainant does not assign any specific role of the accused concerning demand of dowry and physical and 3 mental harassment of the complainant except for making a sweeping allegation without specific details and where evidence of the other witnesses do not disclose anything new as far as the accused is concerned, such material does not constitute a prima facie case against the accused for continuing the criminal proceeding against him. In the said backdrop, this Court is of the view that there being no specific allegation against the petitioner in the complaint and no evidence having transpired against her in course of investigation, the petitioner should not be made to suffer the ordeal of trial and allowing the proceeding to continue against the petitioner shall be an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, the application, being CRR 2921 of 2024 is allowed. GR 488 of 2014 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Barasat, North 24 Parganas be quashed qua the petitioner. The petitioner be set at liberty at once and discharged from her bail bond. It is made clear that the proceeding shall continue against the other accused. Case Diary be returned. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh, J.)