14.08.2026 Sl. No.06. D/L. Mithun. Ct.No.29. CRR/1701/2025 With CRAN 3 of 2026 Palash Bhattacharyya & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sunny Nandy, Ms. Riya Das, Ms. Yamini Tiwari …for the petitioners Mr. Amal Kumar Mukhopadhyay, Mr. Palash Kanti Chakraborty, Mr. Ranik Mukherjee …for opposite party no.2 Mr. Imran Siddiqui …for the State In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of the proceeding being Ashoknagar Police Station Case No.703 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2344 of 2020 presently pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that after making perfunctory investigation police has submitted charge-sheet against the present petitioners who are in-laws of the de facto complainant, under Sections 406/498A of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of some baseless allegations. It is further alleged that the opposite party no.2 has left her matrimonial home on her own volition without giving any intimation to the petitioners and though she was requested on several occasions to return and to lead a peaceful 2 conjugal life but she denied the same and thereafter prayed for accommodation under the same roof after implicating the whole family of the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that opposite party no.2 earlier lodged a complaint against two of the petitioners herein under Section 313 of the IPC and said proceeding has ended in closure of investigation. He further submits that the allegations in the present proceeding are omnibus in nature and do not constitute the offences as alleged in the complaint. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2/complainant raised objection contending that a specific date has been mentioned in the complaint describing the cruelty inflicted upon the de facto complainant. He further submits that whether the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. are stereotyped or not, can only be decided during trial and it is too early to conclude that the materials collected during investigation do not constitute any offence as alleged in the complaint. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State placed the Case Diary and pointed out the materials collected during investigation including the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and the seizure list. He also referred to the charge- sheet submitted by the Investigating Agency. I have considered submission made by petitioners and both the opposite parties. On perusal of the materials collected during 3 investigation including the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., it appears that the present petitioners are brother- in-law, wife of brother-in-law, sister-in-law, husband of sister-in- law and aunt-in-law of the de facto complainant. A perusal of the materials available in the case diary, discloses the fact that the petitioners though relatives of the husband/accused (who is not the petitioner herein) but are not their immediate family members and they have their own way of life. Except the bald statements that the husband/accused and his family members had inflicted torture upon her demanding dowry and that husband and his family members had driven her from her matrimonial house in last December, nothing else indicating petitioners’ involvement in the crime has been mentioned in the complaint. In fact, beside mentioning the name of the petitioners herein in the complaint, no specific or distinct allegations have been made against either of the petitioners herein, i.e. none of the petitioners have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against “family members” of the husband/accused. This simply leads to a situation, wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each of the petitioners in furtherance of the generalized allegations made against them. Insofar as husband/accused is concerned, since he has not approached before this Court, I have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, so far as the petitioners/in-laws are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus may not warrant prosecution. 4 In fact, from the available materials, I am convinced that the involvement of the petitioners/in-laws is with an oblique motive. If only because, petitioners’ names have been written in the FIR and also in the charge sheet the proceeding will have to be continued against the petitioners mechanically, then the very conferment of the jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS would be rendered otiose. It is no answer to say that whether such omnibus allegations are true or false shall be decided during trial, specially when it is apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioners herein have been implicated due to an outburst arising from a matrimonial dispute. Moreover it is settled position of law that it is required to be stated specifically the exact role played by each of the petitioners and it must have been duly demonstrated in the materials collected during investigation. In the absence of the same no fruitful purpose could be achieved by continuing the proceeding as also there is hardly any possibility of conviction at the end of trial. In such view of the matter, the impugned proceeding against the present petitioners /in laws of the opposite party on the basis of such materials if allowed to continue any further, would be mere abuse of the process of the Court. In such view of the matter, CRR 1701 of 2025 along with connected applications are disposed of. The impugned proceeding being G.R. Case No.2344 of 2020 presently pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat is hereby quashed qua the petitioners, namely, 5 Palash Bhattacharyya, Rituparna Bhattacharyya, Moumita Bhattacharyya, Sourav Bhattacharjee and Aparna Banerjee. 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. )