22.7.2026 9 sb CRR 4508 of 2025 Urmila Devi & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Dr. Achin Jana Mr. Prosenjit Ghosh Ms. Chetna Rustagi Ms. Darothi Mukherjee …for the Petitioners Mr. Jitesh Sah Ms. Aishwarya Gopalakrishnan Ms. Sushma Baruah Ms. Debanjan Sen …for the O.P no. 2 Mr. Imran Siddiqui …for the State In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the proceeding pertaining to Malipanchghora Police Station case no. 43 of 2023 dated 2.3.2023 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC corresponding to G.R. case no. 1036 of 2023, presently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Howrah. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that owing to matrimonial discord, the petitioner no. 6 herein/husband had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage before the Family Court, Dwarka, Delhi. However, after reconciliation, the said divorce proceeding was formally withdrawn by the petitioner no. 6 herein/husband. It is alleged by the petitioner that after one month of such reconciliation and withdrawal of the suit, the opposite party no. 2 in a retaliatory move and to wreck vengeance, lodged the instant complaint against her husband and all her in-laws including an 80 year-old grandmother. He further alleged that the learned court below has taken cognizance by an order dated 22.9.2025, where he has not even 2 mentioned the offence in respect of which the court below had taken the cognizance. The order taking cognizance is cryptic and has been passed in a mechanical way. He further submits that the investigation also does not disclose any offence against the present petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that in order to bring home a charge under Section 498A of the IPC, the materials placed on record should show that the ill-treatment was meted out by the husband or a relative, which is connected with non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. In the instant proceeding, even if the allegation made in the FIR and also the materials collected during investigation, are taken at their face value, no case under Section 498A or 406 of the IPC has been made out against the petitioners. There is nothing to show that either the petitioner no. 6 herein/husband or other relatives have ever inflicted any mental trauma or bodily injury over the opposite party no. 2/wife demanding any dowry. However, the complaint demonstrates in respect of only one single incident, which allegedly took place on 2nd March, 2023 at about 12.45 hours when the defacto-complainant came to her in- law’s house at Ghusuri, Howrah to collect her jewellery and clothes. At that time, one of her brother-in-laws namely Amit Gupta and his uncle prevented her from entering into her matrimonial home and abused and threatened her though they have not been charge- sheeted in the instant proceeding. He further submits that so far as the allegation under Section 406 of the IPC is concerned, the prosecution must demonstrate that there was consistent demand of dowry by the in-laws and that those articles have been entrusted to 3 them and those have been misappropriated but in the instant case, the defacto-complainant has made an evasive allegation that her valuable belongings which were kept with her in-laws were misappropriated but she did not mention the details and particulars of such articles. He further submits that taking of cognizance upon an offence cannot be mechanical or cryptic and in fact, while taking cognizance in the instant case, the court below did not assign any reason behind taking such cognizance. He also raised issue regarding the jurisdiction of the court and submits that Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure dictates that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction, it was committed. In the instant case, admittedly, the opposite party no. 2/defacto-complainant resided at Delhi and she also works there and in the FIR also, residential address are recorded in Delhi. According to FIR, no particular incident had taken place within the jurisdiction of Howrah in connection with the present petitioners. It is also evident from the fact that the opposite party no. 2/defacto- complainant had chosen the jurisdiction of Dwarka, Delhi to initiate other proceedings under Section 125 of the Code and under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2012. He further argued that the instant proceeding has been initiated in order to deliberately drag the husband’s extended and distant family members including 80-year old grandmother into a criminal trial and launching of multiple parallel cases across different States clearly shows an intent to harass rather than seek genuine justice. Therefore, he prayed for quashing of the proceeding. 4 In this context, the petitioners have relied upon a judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this High Court in Vargab Mallik and others Vs. State of West Bengal and another reported in 2025 SCC Online Cal 5451. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that after completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners, which discloses prima facie offence against the petitioners under Section 498A/406 of the IPC. The Trial court has not yet conducted the charge hearing and therefore, the petitioners have every liberty to agitate all the points at the time of charge hearing but in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code, High Court cannot conduct a mini trial and thereafter come to a conclusion that the proceeding is liable to be quashed. Therefore, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that this is not a fit case where the proceeding is to be quashed invoking this court’s inherent jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the State placed the case diary and pointed out the statements of three witnesses recorded during investigation and he leaves the prayer made by the parties to the discretion of the court. I have gone through the materials available in the case diary and it appears that during investigation, police recorded statement of three witnesses, who has stated that one day after the marriage, the defacto-complainant along with her husband had gone to Delhi where they resided peacefully. Thereafter, on one occasion, she came to Calcutta to attend a marriage ceremony of one Piyush Gupta on 7th December, 2020. Thereafter, on 2nd March, 2023, she came to her matrimonial home and after loitering outside her matrimonial house, 5 she straightway went to the police station and lodged the complaint. The witnesses have not stated anything further against the petitioners during investigation. No further incriminating materials have also been collected during investigation as appearing from the case diary. Therefore, on the basis of such materials, there is hardly any chance of conviction against the petitioners at the end of trial. Therefore, I find that further continuance of impugned proceeding in view of the available materials would be nothing but a mere abuse of process of the court. In view of above, CRR 4508 of 2025 is hereby allowed. The impugned proceeding being Malipanchghora Police Station case no. 43 of 2023 dated 2.3.2023 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC corresponding to G.R. case no. 1036 of 2023, presently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Howrah stands hereby quashed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)