31.8.2026 8 sb CRR 3005 of 2025 Nandita alias Nivedita Gupta Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Malay Bhattacharya Mr. Subhrajyoti Ghosh …for the Petitioner Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. PP Mr. Imran Siddiqui …for the State Defacto-complainant/opposite party no. 2 is not represented. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceeding being G.R. case no. 3583 of 2022 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, presently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Barrackpore. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the wife of the brother- in-law of the defacto-complainant and is no way connected with the alleged incident. He further submits that the marriage between the opposite party and the co-accused, Rajendra Gupta was solemnized on 22.2.2019 and after two years, she has lodged the present complaint without assigning any reason for delay. He further submits that the defacto-complainant stayed at her matrimonial home only for 18 days and she voluntarily left her matrimonial home. No complaint was lodged by her in this regard prior to 24.4.2022 nor any medical report has been produced showing her treatment for alleged physical assault during that period. The petitioner along with her husband has been working in a company and on the alleged date of occurrence i.e. on 23.4.2022, 2 she was working in the said company from 10 A.M. to 2 P.M. as reflected from the attendance register. He further submits that the allegation against the present petitioner has been made in a stereotype manner only on the basis of vague, general and omnibus statements. Therefore, she prayed for quashment of the said proceeding qua, the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State placed the case diary and submits that in the complaint, the name of the petitioner transpired only in the last paragraph in connection with an incident dated 23.4.2022 and during investigation, the Investigating officer has only recorded statement of mother and sister of the defacto-complainant. However, the investigation has already culminated into a charge-sheet and therefore, he leaves the prayer made by the petitioner to the discretion of the court. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and also going through materials available in the case diary including the statement recorded during investigation, it appears that the allegation against the present petitioner, who is the wife of the brother-in-law of the defacto-complainant, is general and omnibus in nature and no specific overt act has been attributed against the present petitioner in the alleged commission of offence. It also appears from the charge-sheet that previous Investigating officer recovered stridhan articles on 3.7.2022 and 12.7.2022 and released those articles under proper Zimmanama. From the seizure list, it also appears that stridhan articles were seized from the co- accused/husband and not from the petitioner. The charge-sheet does not disclose as to how they implicated the present petitioner as an offender for the alleged occurrence. 3 Except the bald statement that “on 23.4.2022 at about 10.00 hours complainant’s husband and all other accused persons including the petitioner herein entered into her house and after hot altercation her husband and other in-laws started assaulted her by fist and blows and had snatched her gold ring and when she had raised alarm, all accused persons fled away” nothing else indicating petitioner’s involvement in the alleged crime has been mentioned. Mere casual reference of the names of family member in a matrimonial dispute, without allegation of active involvement in the matter does not justify taking cognizance against her. When the contents of the FIR and also statements of witnesses made under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not disclose specific allegation against the petitioner herein, except casual reference of her name, it would not be just to direct the petitioner to go through protracted procedure. This is also because FIR and materials collected during investigation, does not disclose ingredients of any of the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet against the petitioner. It has been highlighted by the Apex Court in various instances that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts scars upon the accused and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged. Therefore, I find that on the basis of available materials, there is hardly any chance of conviction of the present petitioner at the end of trial and as such, further continuance of the impugned proceeding against the present petitioner would be nothing but a mere abuse of process of the court. In view of above, CRR 3005 of 2025 is hereby allowed. 4 The impugned proceeding being G.R. case no. 3583 of 2022 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, presently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Barrackpore is hereby quashed qua the petitioner namely, Nandita alias Nivedita Gupta. 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.)