07.9.2026 10. Bd. CRR 850 of 2026 Apratim Banerjee & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Anirban Dutta Ms. Neha Gupta Mr. Younus Sultan …for the Petitioners. Mr. Kallol Mondal Mr. Imran Siddiqui …for the State In this application the petitioners have prayed for quashment of the proceeding being GR Case No. 4712 of 2023 under section 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 presently pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defacto complainant lodged a complaint where it was alleged that after few days of her marriage the petitioners started demanding more dowry and upon her inability to comply, she was subjected to physical torture and mental harassment and that her husband was an alcoholic and there was no physical relationship between them causing apprehension of impotency or an extra marital affair. Due to said harassment and apprehension to her life, she returned to Kolkata on 23.11.2022. 2 On the basis of said complaint the investigating agency after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the three accused persons and discharged two other accused persons. Being aggrieved by the impugned proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the opposite party/defacto complainant had voluntarily left her matrimonial house. The Investigating Officer in blatant disregard to the actual facts of the case, has filed charge-sheet under section 498A IPC against the petitioners. During investigation he failed to establish any such circumstances which could have led him to file charge-sheet under the said sections against the petitioners. There is no material on record which connects the petitioners with the alleged crime. He further submits that on perusal of the statement of the charge-sheet mentioned witnesses it would be evident that petitioners never subjected the opposite party no. 2 to any cruelty and it was rather the opposite party no. 2 who on her own accord had left the residence of the petitioners and subsequently initiated the malicious proceeding with an intent to harass the petitioners as the opposite party no. 2 was not interested in the present marriage and without any reason abandoned the petitioners. Therefore the prosecution has failed to establish the alleged offence of section 498 A of the IPC. As such, further continuance of the impugned proceeding would be a mere abuse of the process of the court. Petitioners in this context further submits that no preliminary enquiry was done before starting investigation and 3 thereby investigating agency has violated the mandatory law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari –vs- Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. Petitioners in support of quashment also relied upon the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Ors. –vs. State of Telangana and Anr. and accordingly prayed for quashment of the said proceeding. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State placed the case diary where statements of four witnesses have been recorded, Out of which three witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and the statement made by other witness is evasive and omnibus in nature which does not specify any specific role played by the petitioners in commission of the alleged offences. Therefore, he leaves the prayer to the discretion of the court. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the materials in the case diary, it appears that in the charge-sheet the investigating officer has clearly stated that the defacto-complainant failed to adjust with the FIR noted accused persons and was unable to continue her conjugal life. Later she left her matrimonial house on her own will. He further noted that accused persons are ready to return all FIR noted articles to the complainant. They also gave a written intimation via mail over that issue. But she did not turn up and due to her non co-operation the investigating agency could not succeed to recover her FIR noted stridhan articles from her matrimonial house. It further appears from the charge-sheet that prosecution has cited the name of five witnesses to support the prosecution case, out of 4 which defacto complainant has not made any separate statement before police under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and charge-sheet mentioned witness no. 2 has made some evasive allegations aginst the petitioners which are omnibus in nature and no specific role has been attributed against any of the petitioners in her statement. The other three witnesses namely, the charge-sheeted witnesses nos. 3, 4 and 5 have not supported the prosecution case and have clearly made statement that they have never seen the petitioners to inflict torture upon the defacto-complainant. The defacto complainant could not adjust and eventually left her matrimonial house voluntarily. In Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. Reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 759, Supreme court observed that in all cases, where wife complains of harassment or ill treatment, section 498 A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happens in day to day married life may also not amount to cruelty. In the above backdrop, I find that there is hardly any chance of conviction of the present petitioners on the basis of the available materials collected during investigation. As such, I find that further continuance of the impugned proceeding would be nothing short of abuse of process of law and travesty of justice. This is a fit case where the High Court is to quash the criminal proceeding invoking inherent jurisdiction under section 528 of BNSS. 5 Accordingly, CRR 850 of 2026 is allowed. The impugned proceeding being GR Case No. 4712 of 2023 under section 498A/406 presently pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, is hereby quashed. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, duly applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)