15.7.2026 SL No. 10 Ct No. 22 SB CRR 3303 of 2022 CRAN 3 of 2023 (not in file) CRAN 4 of 2024 (extension of interim order) Anjum Irfan Fakhri Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Krishna Das Poddar Ms. Rubina Akhtar … for opposite party no. 2. 1. When the matter is called on for hearing, none appears on behalf of the petitioner, and no accommodation is prayed for. The private opposite party No. 2 and the State are also completely unrepresented before this Court today. 2. Records reveal that this revisional application has been pending on the files of this Court since the year 2022. The petitioner was afforded multiple opportunities to appear, advance arguments, and prosecute the application, yet a persistent attitude of dormancy and reluctance has been exhibited. The absence of the parties today clearly represents a total lack of interest in prosecuting this matter. 3. It is a primary tenet of judicial administration that criminal revisions cannot be treated as escape hatches to indefinitely stall investigations or trials in the courts below. Litigants cannot be permitted to obtain ad-interim orders or keep such applications pending to clog the dockets of this Court. Public policy and the ends of justice demand that long-pending matters, particularly those touching upon matrimonial discords with criminal ramifications, be resolved with utmost dispatch. When parties choose to remain wilfully absent despite several opportunities, the Court is duty-bound to examine the materials available on record and dispose of the application on its merits. Accordingly, I take up this matter for final disposal on the basis of the materials available on record. 4. The instant revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred by the petitioner, Anjum Irfan Fakhri, praying for quashing of the proceedings in connection with Park Street Police Station Case No. 174 of 2019 dated September 08, 2019, under Sections 498A, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1163 of 2019), currently pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court at Calcutta. 5. 5. The factual matrix of the prosecution case, as gathered from the written complaint dated September 01, 2019, lodged by the private opposite party No. 2 (Shamila Parveen), is that she entered into wedlock with the principal accused, Abid Hussain, on July 24, 2016, according to Islamic Shariat rites. 6. The complainant alleges that soon after the marriage, physical and mental torture was meted out to her by her husband, her sisters-in- law (Shahnaz Fakhri and Yasmin Khatoon), and her brother-in-law (Anjum Irfan Fakhri, the petitioner herein). It is alleged that the accused persons, including the petitioner, actively instigated her husband, Abid Hussain, to control her. 7. Specifically, the complainant asserts that the petitioner, along with the other named co-accused, demanded a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the complainant's mother for the purchase of a flat, using highly abusive language. She further narrates detailed instances of subsequent torture, physical assault with belts and wooden sticks, confinement, and humiliation meted out to her, culminating in her desertion in March 2019 and a pre-planned divorce letter dated March 21, 2019. 8. In the revisional application, the petitioner, Anjum Irfan Fakhri, seeks quashing of the prosecution against him on the following grounds: First, that he is merely a brother-in-law (husband of the complainant's sister-in-law) who resides separately at Ripon Street/Marquis Street, and has never shared a common household with the complainant or her husband at their matrimonial home in Garden Reach. Second, that the allegations in the written complaint against the petitioner are omnibus, vague, and lack specific dates, times, or precise overt acts. Third, that there is an unexplained delay of six months in lodging the complaint, which indicates that the criminal machinery was set in motion as an afterthought to pressure the husband's family. Fourth, that a charge sheet has already been filed, but the materials therein do not disclose any triable offence against the petitioner under Sections 498A/506 of the IPC or Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 9. I have carefully perused the materials on record, including the First Information Report, the written complaint, the grounds of the revisional petition, and the charge sheet filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Charge Sheet No. 121 of 2019 dated November 24, 2019). 10. While it is true that courts must guard against the over-implication of distant relatives in matrimonial disputes, this protective principle cannot be applied as a mechanical formula to throttle a legitimate prosecution at its inception where prima facie case is established. 11. A close reading of the written complaint in the instant case reveals that the petitioner, Anjum Irfan Fakhri, is not a distant, unnamed bystander. He has been specifically arrayed as Accused No. 4. Paragraph 4 of the complaint contains a direct, positive assertion that the petitioner, alongside the sisters-in-law, actively instigated the husband to control the complainant, and joined in the raise of a illegal demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the purchase of a flat. 12. Furthermore, the investigating agency, upon concluding its investigation, has filed a final report in the form of a charge sheet against the petitioner. Once a charge sheet has been submitted by the investigating agency upon finding a prima facie case, the court, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., must not enter into a domain of speculative appreciation of evidence or hold a mini-trial. 13. The plea of separate residence raised by the petitioner is a factual defence. 14. It is a settled law that separate residence of an in-law, by itself, is not a golden passport to escape criminal prosecution under Section 498A of the IPC if there are specific, uncontroverted allegations of physical and mental harassment or unlawful dowry demands made by such relative. 15. Whether the petitioner was actually residing separately and did not participate in the alleged acts of instigation and demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- are disputed questions of fact. These contentions constitute the petitioner's defense and must be put to the test of cross-examination during the trial. They cannot be summarily adjudicated by this Court in a revisional proceeding. 16. With regard to the delay of six months in filing the complaint, it is well- settled that in matrimonial offences, delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal per se. A wife who has been deserted and is struggling with the trauma of a broken marriage and the custody of a child cannot be expected to run to the police station immediately. Such delay, if any, is a matter of appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court and does not warrant the quashing of the proceedings at the threshold. 17. In view of the specific allegations of physical abuse, instigation, and monetary demand, I am of the opinion that the ingredients of Sections 498A, 506, and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are prima facie made out on the face of the record. The case does not fall within the categories of "patent absurdity" or "inherent improbability" laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. Consequently, I find no jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the continuation of the proceedings. 18. For the reasons discussed above, the prayer for quashing of the proceedings stands rejected. 19. C.R.R. No. 3303 of 2022 is hereby dismissed. 20. Connected applications, being CRAN 3 of 2023 and CRAN 4 of 2024 stand disposed of. 21. The interim order of stay granted earlier, if any, stands vacated. 22. The petitioner, Anjum Irfan Fakhri, shall appear before the Learned Trial Court on each and every scheduled date of hearing. 23. The Learned Trial Court shall proceed with the trial with the expeditious trial of this case. 24. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Learned Trial Court immediately for information and necessary action. 25. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Uday Kumar, J.)