08.07.2026 Item no. 87 Court No. 5 Sayan In the High Court at Calcutta Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction CRR 559 of 2025 In the matter: Satya Roy & others … petitioners Mr. Subham Ghosh Mr. Mayank Roy … … For the Petitioners Mr. Janardhan Periwal, ld. Jr. APP Mr. Bapi Sarkar Mr. Rajdeep Das … …For the State 1. This is a criminal revision application by the petitioner seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings being Cooch Behar Women Police Station Case No. 161 of 2023 dated November 24, 2023 under Sections 498A, 506, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and charge-sheet submitted therein vide charge-sheet No. 162 of 2023 corresponding to GR No. 2233 of 2023 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Cooch Behar, District- Cooch Behar. 2. Mr. Subham Ghosh, learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to the FIR lodged by the de facto complainant in the case. According to him, though in the FIR, the petitioner has alleged about certain kind of criminal action by the petitioners, neither her allegations are specific in terms of date, manner etc. nor any specific role of any of the present petitioners have been identified therein. It is submitted that, subsequently a charge-sheet has been filed implicating all the petitioners as accused persons in the case and sending them for trial. 2 3. According to the petitioner, in view of the general nature of allegation, sending them for trial would amount to abuse of the process of Court which is not maintainable in view of the law settled in this regard. 4. To buttress his argument, Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate for the petitioners has referred to a judgment of Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others versus State of Telangana & Another reported in 2025 (3) SCC 735 and the following paragraph thereof: - “25. 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 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.” 5. State has raised objection as regards the contention and prayer of the petitioners insofar as on the basis of the materials on CD, Mr. Janardhan Periwal, learned Junior P.P. appearing for the State has submitted that not only prima facie but sufficient and convincing materials are available against all the petitioners suggesting infliction of torture upon the de facto complainant by them and, therefore, as regards the offence alleged against them. 3 6. In spite of service, none appears for the opposite party No. 2. Affidavit of service filed in Court has been taken on record. 7. Hence, this matter is taken up in absence of the opposite party No. 2 for adjudication and disposal. 8. It is now settled law that the Court would require concrete and specific evidence against the accused persons as regards their involvement and role in connection with an offence of torture concerning matrimonial discord. The said principle of law now well-settled has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra), as quoted above. 9. On careful perusal of the FIR as well as other materials available on CD, only generalized and sweeping accusations, unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized allegations can be found, which as a matter of fact cannot form the basis of criminal prosecution against them. The Supreme Court has time and again spoken about its concern regarding unnecessary harassment of the innocent family. The facts and circumstances of the instant case appear to be a glaring example of like nature which has to be prevented. Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra) has categorically held that in such a situation, in absence of any specific allegation against the matrimonial family members of the de facto complainant, dragging them to criminal prosecution would be an abuse of the process of law. 10. In view of the law settled as discussed above and also in consideration of the facts and circumstances as apparent on the basis of the records of the case and materials available in CD, the Court, therefore, finds that the instant is not a fit case for sending the petitioners/accused persons 4 to face the rigours of trial for the reasons as discussed above. Or instead, the same shall amount to abuse of the process of Court which is unsustainable in the eye of law. 11. Accordingly, the Court finds it proper to allow the present revision with the directions as follows: - i. The GR case No. 2233 of 2023, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Cooch Behar in connection with Cooch Behar Women Police Station case No. 161 of 2023 dated November 24, 2023 under Sections 498A, 506, 323 and 34, IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. ii. Consequently, the connected FIR and the charge-sheet are also set aside. 12. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)