IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) CRR 3053 of 2024 Jungli @ Jangali Ansari & Ors. Vs Mr. Firoz Alam For the Petitioners : Mr. Sabir Ahmed, Mr. Dhiman Banerjee, Ms. Jyoti Sipani. For the Opposite Party : None. Judgment reserved on : 01.09.2026 Judgment delivered on : 21.09.2026 Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.: 1. The criminal revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceedings being Complaint Case No. 586C of 2021 now pending in the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court at Howrah, under Sections 323/325/341/380/448/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The present case has been initiated on a complaint by the husband of the sister of petitioner no.2. The marriage herein took place on 2 December 1, 2023. After the marriage due to demand of dowry the opposite party started to inflict physical and mental torture upon the sister of petitioner no.2. In spite of having two children, the sister of the petitioner no. 2 along with her children were thrown out of her matrimonial home. The sister filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. A meeting was called to settle the dispute between the parties and one memorandum of understanding was executed between the sister of the petitioner no.2 and the opposite party on 27.08.2021. 3. The allegation, as made in the petition of complaint, are:- “That after their marriage the wife of the complainant/opposite party behaved roughly with the complainant and his family members. Several meetings were held for reconciliation of the disputes between the parties but all failed. It was further alleged that on 23rd July, 2021, when the complainant was in his Factory, one neighbour informed him that the accused persons had assembled in his house. When the complainant reached his house, he found that his wife had packed her luggage to leave her matrimonial home accompanied with their children and the petitioners herein. Upon asking the complainant was abused by the accused persons. It was further alleged that the accused persons tore the shirt collar of the complainant, slapped him and assaulted him with fist and blows. The accused person also threatened the complainant with dire consequences. Few hours after all the accused persons had left the complainant found that gold ornaments of about 310 gms. in total, original property documents and cash of about Rs.28,000/- was taken away by the accused person. The complainant informed the said incident to Belur Police Station by filing several Written Complaints but no action was taken 3 against the accused person. Aggrieved by the inaction of the Police authorities, the complainant wrote letter to the Commissioner of Police, Howrah. Since no step was taken against the complaint lodged by the Opposite Party, the complainant filed the instant complaint under Section 323/325/341/380/448/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code against his wife and the petitioners.” 4. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record it appears that the dispute between the parties arose out of the matrimonial dispute between the sister of petitioner no.2 and the complainant. Admittedly, there was a memorandum of understanding executed between the parties, but it was during the incident, when the sister of the petitioner no.2 was leaving her matrimonial home and the complainant tried to stop it, that the altercation occurred. 5. It appears prima facie that this is a family dispute and none of the ingredients, as required prima facie, were against the petitioners herein. 6. In State of Haryana and Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) 335, the Supreme Court held:- “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 4 (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (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.” 7. The present case is thus clearly covered by the guidelines in State of Haryana vs Bhajanlal (Supra) (Para 102). 8. CRR 3053 of 2024 is allowed. 9. The proceeding being Complaint Case No. 586C of 2021 now pending in the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court at Howrah, 5 under Sections 323/325/341/380/448/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioners namely Jungli @ Jangali Ansari, Heena Kaushar @ Hena Kausar and Juber Ansari. 10. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 12. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance. 13. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)