16.09.2026 Sl. No. DL 6 Court No. 29 Asraf, A.R.(Ct.) In the High Court at Calcutta Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Case No. CRR 1007 of 2026 In Re : An application under Section 442 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. -AND- In the matter of : SHOMIK RAY & ORS. ……Petitioners For the Petitioners : Mr. Antarikhya Basu Ms. Madhumita Basak Ms. Mayurakshi Saha …Advocates For the State : Mr. Kallol Mondal, Public Prosecutor Ms. Ananya Chakraborty Mr. Imran Siddiqui …Advocates For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Amitabha Ghosh …Advocates 1. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of the proceedings being GR Case No.957 of 2019 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code presently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Serampore, Hooghly. 2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceeding was initiated on 07.09.2019, nearly nine days after the petitioner no.1 filed Matrimonial Suit No.305 of 2019 seeking restitution of conjugal rights on 29.05.2019. He further submits that the close proximity between the two proceedings clearly indicates that the FIR is retaliatory in nature and has been lodged as a counter-blast to the matrimonial action. He also submits that the allegations in the FIR are largely general and omnibus and no specific overt act or date of specific incident or distinct role of alleged perpetrators has been attributed to the petitioner nos.2 and 3 who are aged about 83 and 77 years respectively. The de facto complainant admittedly had resided with her in-laws at Parnashree for a very limited duration, for approximately 11 days in two phases during the entire subsistence of the marriage. Her matrimonial life was primarily centered at Bharuch, Gujarat and therefore the allegation of inflicting cruelty by the petitioner nos.2 and 3 are inherently improbable. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that during the examination-in-chief of PW 1 which was recorded on 20.09.2023, the de facto complainant failed to disclose any specific instance of physical assault or unlawful demand or entrustment of stridhan in order to attract any offence either under Section 498A or 406 of IPC. In the chargesheet, only five witnesses have been cited, namely, the complainant, her parents, the recording officer and the investigating officer and no independent neighbour or local witness from Bharuch or Parnashree has been examined during investigation. 4. Though an evasive allegation of demanding Rs.10 lakhs has been made but such allegation has not been supported by any contemporaneous documents or any corroborative evidence. 5. Therefore, petitioner‟s counsel submits that further continuance of the impugned proceeding against the petitioners would be mere abuse of the process of the Court. He prayed for quashment of the proceeding against the petitioners. 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments :- i. (2025) 3 SCC 756 (Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.); ii. (2010) 7 SCC 667 (Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.); iii. (2013) 14 SCC 374 (Chandralekha & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.); iv. (2015) 11 SCC 769 (Pritam Ashok Sadaphule & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.); v. (2000) 9 SCC 257 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Ashok Narayan Dandalwar) 7. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer for quashment and contended that the examination-in-chief of the de facto complainant is over and the next date is fixed for her cross-examination. He further submits that during examination-in-chief, it has been clearly disclosed that the parents-in-law of the de facto complainant advised her to divorce her husband under the provision of divorce by mutual consent and her husband also gave a proposal that if she paid a lot of money then only he will resume matrimonial tie and, therefore, it constitutes the offence of cruelty defined under Section 498A of IPC. He, therefore, submits that this is not a fit case where the proceeding is to be quashed at the evidence stage invoking this Court‟s inherent jurisdiction. 8. Learned counsel for the State placed the case diary and pointed out the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 9. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. 10. On perusal of the case diary, it appears that in the chargesheet name of five witnesses have been cited, out of which chargesheet mentioned witness no.1 is the de facto complainant and 2 and 3 are the parents of the de facto complainant and the rest are investigating officers. It further appears that during investigation, the said three witnesses have made their statements which have been recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and on perusal of the said statements, it appears that it does not disclose offence of cruelty as defined in the explanation to Section 498A of the IPC. 11. Though Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has strenuously argued that the examination-in-chief of the PW 1 has already been recorded which discloses the offence of cruelty but on perusal of the same, I find that she has not alleged anything which may amount to harassment of the victim with a view to coercing her or any such harassment was made to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand as defined in the explanation to Section 498A of IPC. 12. What complainant stated in her deposition as PW-1 is that she resided at her matrimonial house at Behala for 3 / 4 days and thereafter on 25.12.2015 when she went to her husband‟s workplace at Bharuch, Gujarat, her husband started to behave with her rudely. Her gynecological problems were not taken care of by her husband nor he incurred any medical expenditure for herself or her son and on the contrary sent her at her father‟s house and that her in-laws advised her to dissolve marriage. When she gave birth of a child, her husband did not keep any contact with her and thereby made an evasive statement that he asked for Rs. 10 lakhs and upon paying the same he would resume matrimonial tie. 13. Such statement clearly goes against the averment made by the husband in the Matrimonial Suit seeking restitution of conjugal rights. In fact the statement made by PW-1 in examination-in-chief falls short of the requirement to constitute offence of “cruelty” as defined in Section 498A IPC. Even on an assumption that there is no contradiction in her oral testimony available on record as reproduced above which are mainly about husband‟s rude behaviour and/or failure to take proper care and about in-laws alleged advice to dissolve the marriage etc., at best makes out some kind of ill behavior constituting mental torture but this by itself does not bring home the charge under Section 498A IPC. The legislative intent is clear enough to indicate in particular reference to explanation (b) that there shall have to be a series of acts in order to be a harassment within the meaning of explanation (b) supported by cogent evidence. 14. In Girdhar Shankar Taware Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 2078, Supreme Court held that the term „cruelty‟ has to be understood having a specific statutory meaning provided in Section 498A IPC and there should be a case of continuous state of affairs of torture by one to another. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as cruelty to attract the provision of Section 498A IPC. I am, therefore, of the view that the proceeding has been initiated with ulterior motive to settle personal scores and grudges against the petitioners. 15. When the de facto complainant‟s evidence as PW 1 does not disclose the concept of cruelty, there is hardly any chance that the offence of cruelty as attributed in the written complaint would be proved in this case in order to entail conviction orders against the petitioners. 16. Hence, the present proceeding falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in paragraph 102 of Bhajanlal‟s case reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 which states “(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and / or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge”. 17. In view of above, the instant revisional application being CRR 1007 of 2026 is allowed. 18. The impugned proceedings being GR Case No.957 of 2019 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code presently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Serampore, Hooghly is hereby quashed. 19. All parties shall act on the basis of server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 20. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. ( Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. )