31.07.2026 Sl. No.04. D/L. Mithun. Ct.No.29. CRR/1679/2026 Sudipta Mondal @ Sudipto Mondal & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharya, Mr. Priyam Misra, Ms. Ankita Mishra, …for the petitioners Mr. Shataroop Purkayastha …for the State Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record. In spite of service, private opposite party is not represented. Petitioners who are the brother-in-law and wife of brother-in- law of the de facto complainant have prayed for quashment of the proceeding being G.R. Case No.1017 of 2025 under Sections 85/316(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023 presently pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basirhat. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of an evasive allegation levelled against the petitioners and other accused persons, the present criminal proceeding has been initiated and after completion of investigation, the police has submitted charge- sheet against the accused persons including the present petitioners. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners since their marriage have been 2 residing separately in their own independent residence, which is wholly distinct and at a different location from that of the matrimonial home of the opposite party no.2. The petitioners never resided at the said matrimonial home. In the FIR and also from the materials collected during investigation, it clearly demonstrates that no specific individual act of cruelty, harassment or criminal breach of trust has been attributed to either of the present petitioners. He further submits that from the statements of complainant and her parents and another witness, Ranjit Sarkar, it appears that none of the witnesses claimed to have been present during any of the alleged incident and, therefore, all the statements made by them are hearsay and mere repetition of the complainant’s version without any one referring to any particular act of either of the petitioners. He further submits that on 20th March, 2025, all the stridhan/household articles were seized by police from the matrimonial house and the custody of the seized articles have been given to the complainant on the same date and the present petitioners have got no connection with either keeping the said ornaments or with delivery of the same to the police. However, complete recovery and restoration of stridhan articles have already been done. Therefore, further continuance of the impugned proceeding against the present petitioners would be mere abuse of the process of the Court. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for quashment of the 3 proceeding. He submits that the marriage took place on 14.07.2023 and after few days she was asked to return to her parental house and thereafter she was never allowed to return to her house and thereby the offence of cruelty has been established. He further submits that all the family members have decided not to allow the de facto complainant to enter into the house which constitutes to cruelty and attracts Section 85 of the BNS and, therefore, this is not a fit case where the proceeding has to be quashed invoking the Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. I have considered submissions made on behalf of both the parties. Needless to say that from the written complaint and the materials collected during investigation, it clearly reveals that the FIR proceeded on an omnibus allegation that all the accused persons tortured and harassed the complainant. No specific allegation has been attributed against any of the petitioners herein. Section 85 of the BNS requires proof that the woman was subjected to cruelty and such cruelty was inflicted by the husband or a relative of the husband. Cruelty as defined under the Explanation to Section 85 BNS means any wilful conduct likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health, or harassment with a view to coercing her or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security. In the FIR or in the materials collected during investigation, there is no indication that any specific role has been attributed 4 against any of the petitioners in committing the alleged act of cruelty. Section 316(2) of the BNS pertains to criminal breach of trust and the core ingredient is to entrustment of property and dishonest intention and or misappropriation and or conversion thereof. The petitioners’ specific case is that they never resided at the matrimonial home and nothing is reflected from the materials collected during investigation which point out that they have ever taken custody, control or possession of the property of the opposite party no.2. From the seizure list it appears that the stridhan properties were not seized from the present petitioners and, as such, the allegation of criminal breach of trust against the petitioners is factually improbable and legally untenable. There is also nothing to suggest that there was any common pre-arranged plan or active participation in execution of any of the acts mentioned in the FIR to constitute offence under Section 3(5) of BNS. The witnesses who were examined during investigation stated only that they heard or came to know of the alleged incident from the complainant and, as such, their statements are hearsay in character and is not credible to make out even a prima facie case against the petitioners. The witnesses have also not referred any specific role to either of the petitioners of having committed any of the acts of cruelty or criminal breach of trust. It is also surprising to note that the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation are mere verbatim reproduction of the statement 5 made by the de facto complainant which also raises suspicion about the credibility of their statements. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners also pointed out that an inordinate delay has been caused in lodging the FIR without having any explanation in the complaint. The FIR was lodged on 6th March, 2025 which is approximately 19 months after the marriage that took place on 14.07.2023 and over one month after the alleged last incident on 31st January, 2025. The de facto complainant has also not produced any medical evidence in support of her alleged case of physical cruelty and particularly no allegation of physical cruelty has also been inflicted against the present petitioners, who claimed that they reside separately from that of the matrimonial house of the de facto complainant. Therefore, on perusal of the FIR, charge-sheet and materials collected during investigation, it would clearly reveal that the prosecution agency has failed to make out the offences as alleged against the present petitioners for which they could be asked to face the ordeal of trial. Therefore, I am of the view that further continuance of the impugned proceeding against the present petitioners in the absence of any specific overt act against them would be mere abuse of the process of the Court as also there would be hardly any chance of conviction of the present petitioners even if the trial is allowed to continue against them. In view of above, CRR 1679 of 2026 is allowed. The impugned proceeding being G.R. Case No.1017 of 2025 presently pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial 6 Magistrate, Basirhat is hereby quashed qua the petitioners, namely, Sudipta Mondal @ Sudipto Mondal and Moumita Mondal @ Moumita Bain. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. ( Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. )