Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 29947 (CAL)

KRISHNA JHA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/16326/2026 · 2026-07-23

Saugata Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

18 2233..0077..22002266 Ct. No. 05 adeb WPA 16326 of 2026 Krishna Jha Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Girish Chandra Gupta …for the petitioner Mr. D.N. Roy Mr. Partha Sarathi Basu Mr. Ghanashyam Pandey …for the State 1. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Petitioner, inter alia, has prayed for quashing of criminal prosecution being Behala Women Police Station Case No. 2 of 2026 dated 20th March, 2026 under Sections 85, 316(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that frivolous and vexatious complaint was lodged by the respondent no. 5 against her husband and two sister-in-laws. Petitioner is one of the sister-in-laws. According to the petitioner there is no requirement to investigate the complaint made against her by continuing aforesaid criminal prosecution and said 2 criminal prosecution warrants an order thereby quashing the same. 4. However, different facts are revealed from relevant part of the FIR. Respondent no. 5 being wife of one Vijay Shankar Jha lodged complaint alleging physical and mental torture at the instance of her in-laws. 5. Considering the nature of complaint lodged by respondent no. 5 against accused persons this Court finds it is not a fit case to interfere with the criminal prosecution when investigation is continuing. Petitioner has alternative remedy under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 thereby seeking pre-arrest bail before the appropriate forum. 6. It is trite that High Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India considering a writ petition seeking quashing of criminal prosecution ought not to make an endeavour to find out veracity of the allegation. Such power needs to be exercised with circumspection and sparingly. It is not a routine procedure thereby passing an order for quashing criminal prosecution. 7. In aforesaid conspectus this Court is not inclined to interfere with this writ petition and same stands dismissed. 3 8. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)