IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR CRR 2264 OF 2024 NANDITA MASANI -VS- STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. For the Petitioner : Mr. Anupam Kr. Bhattacharyya, Ld. Adv. Mr. Dipankar Mullick, Ld. Adv. Mr. Mritunjay Saha, Ld. Adv. For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Subhendu Halder, Ld. Adv. Mr. Abhirup Halder, Ld. Adv. Mr. Debarun Biswas, Ld. Adv. For the State : Mr. Rajendra Banerjee, Ld. APP Mr. P. Karan Singh, Ld. Adv. Reserved on : 09.09.2026 Pronounced on : 22.09.2026 UDAY KUMAR, J.: – 1. The petitioner here is the mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2, and she has invoked the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of Maheshtala Police Station Case No. 154/24 dated March 31, 2024, corresponding to BGR No. 1636 of 2024, under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code, currently pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore, South 24 Parganas, including the subsequent 2 CRR 2264 OF 2024 police report submitted under Section 173(2) being Charge-Sheet No. 277 of 2024 dated June 29, 2024. 2. The brief recap of the foundational facts is that the marriage between the petitioner's elder son, Sourav Masani, and the opposite party no. 2, Ankita Masani, was solemnized on March 10, 2022 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Following their marriage, the couple started living at the matrimonial home situated at Serampore in the district of Hooghly. Due to marital discord, the opposite party no. 2 left the matrimonial home on December 27, 2023, along with her infant child, and went to her parental home at Maheshtala. On that very day of her departure from matrimonial home on December 27, 2023, an inventory of gold ornaments and Stridhan articles was prepared, and a joint acknowledgment receipt was executed by the O.P. No. 2, acknowledging the return of those items. 3. Subsequently, the husband instituted Matrimonial Suit No. 111 of 2024 for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Assistant District Judge, 1st Court at Serampore. It is after receiving summons in that suit the opposite party no. 2, retaliated by lodging the impugned criminal complaint on March 31, 2024 after an unexplained gap of over four months from 27.12.2023, which led to the registration of the Maheshtala Police Station Case No. 154 of 2024 and during the pendency of this revisional application, a Charge Sheet No. 277 of 2024 dated June 29, 2024, under Sections 498A/406 IPC against the petitioner was subsequently filed. 3 CRR 2264 OF 2024 4. Mr. Anupam Kr. Bhattacharyya, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has forcefully argued that the initiation of the FIR is vitiated ab initio for non-compliance with the mandatory preliminary inquiry guidelines laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. & Ors., [(2014) 2 SCC 1]. He next contended that in view of the joint acknowledgment receipt dated December 27, 2023, executed by the O.P. No. 2, evidencing the return of all Stridhan articles, the essential ingredients of "entrustment" and "dishonest misappropriation" under Section 406 IPC are completely absent. He further submitted that the petitioner is an elderly mother-in- law who has been roped in through general, sweeping, and omnibus allegations without any specific assignment of dates, times, or individual overt acts, which brings her case squarely within the protective umbrella of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., [(2022) 6 SCC 599], Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [(2023) 16 SCC 666], and Dr. Sushil Kumar Purbey & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2026 SCC OnLine SC 338), as there is a total absence of "grave suspicion" and lack of specific overt acts attributable to the petitioner in the said written complaint. Lastly, he urged that the connected criminal proceeding is a mala fide, retaliatory counterblast to the matrimonial suit for restitution filed by the son, thereby constituting an abuse of the process of court. 5. Per contra, Mr. Rajendra Banerjee, Learned APP has vehemently opposed the revisional application. He submitted that the investigation has already culminated in the submission of a charge-sheet after 4 CRR 2264 OF 2024 recording statements of witnesses and collecting incriminating materials regarding involvement of the petitioner in the offences alleged therein. Placing reliance upon Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P., [(2021) 9 SCC 35], Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2021) 19 SCC 401] and State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty & Ors., [(2022) 16 SCC 703], the learned counsel for the State contended that once a charge-sheet is filed disclosing a prima facie case, this Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or re-appreciate evidence in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Responding to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the Lalita Kumari (supra), he submitted that paragraph 120.1 of the report makes registration of the FIR mandatory upon disclosure of a cognizable offense, and the use of the word "may" in paragraph 120.6 of the report regarding preliminary inquiries is directory, not mandatory (as re-iterated in Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat & Ors., [(2025) 4 SCC 818]. He further submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR has been duly explained in the complaint itself, attributing such delay to be arising out of attempts at reconciliation, post-pregnancy medical issues, and care of an infant child, and as per the law laid down in Skoda Auto Volkswagen (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [(2021) 5 SCC 795], delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to quash a genuine criminal proceeding at the threshold. Citing Rupali Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors., [(2019) 5 SCC 384], and Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., [(1999) 9 SCC 728], he argued that the mental cruelty under Section 498A IPC continues to operate even 5 CRR 2264 OF 2024 after leaving the matrimonial home, sustaining territorial jurisdiction at Maheshtala. Finally, he submitted that if the petitioner has any grievance regarding the document acknowledging receipt of Stridhan articles(Annexure P-4 to the revisional application) or lack of specific evidence in the written complaint, her proper remedy is to seek discharge before the learned Trial Court under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), [(2013) 9 SCC 293], and Taramani Parakh v. State of M.P. & Ors., [(2015) 11 SCC 260]. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and having gone through the materials on record, and the cluster of judicial pronouncements cited at the Bar, I find that four distinct questions fall for my consideration: First, whether the failure to conduct a preliminary inquiry as per the mandate of Lalita Kumari (supra) vitiates the investigation at the post-charge-sheet stage; Second, whether the acknowledgment receipt dated December 27, 2023, warrants quashing the charge under Section 406 IPC at the threshold; Third, whether the allegations against the petitioner are general and omnibus lacking grave suspicion; and Fourth, whether the proceeding is a malicious counterblast making quashing imperative, or whether the matter ought to be relegated to the Trial Court under Section 239 Cr.P.C. 6 CRR 2264 OF 2024 7. Now, let me examine and deal with these four questions one by one for determination applying the relevant case laws cited by both sides. 8. I shall take up the first question which relates to the contention raised by the petitioner that the failure to conduct a preliminary inquiry as per the mandate of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari (supra) vitiates the entire prosecution on the ground that in matrimonial disputes, a preliminary inquiry is mandatory. When examining Lalita Kumari (supra) closely, I find that while paragraph 120.6 of the said report contemplates a preliminary inquiry may be conducted in matrimonial or commercial disputes, but the use of the word "may" make it a discretionary administrative safeguard, not a rigid jurisdictional mandate whereas paragraph 120.1 of the report explicitly mandates the registration of an FIR if the information supplied discloses a cognizable offense. More importantly, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma (supra), once an investigation is fully completed, witnesses are examined, and a charge-sheet is submitted disclosing a prima facie case, any initial procedural omission or lack of a preliminary inquiry at the pre- registration stage stands completely and irrevocably cured. Thus, the omission to hold a preliminary inquiry before registration of FIR cannot vitiate a completed investigation. The first question is accordingly answered in negative, against the petitioner. 9. Coming to the second question concerning the joint acknowledgment receipt dated December 27, 2023 (Annexure P-4 to the revisional application), regarding the return of Stridhan articles to the O.P. No. 2, 7 CRR 2264 OF 2024 and whether it warrants quashing the charge under Section 406 IPC at the threshold. The petitioner seeks to rely upon the said document to extinguish the charge under Section 406 IPC. The petitioner placed heavy reliance on Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., [(2011) 7 SCC 59], and Anand Kumar Mohatta & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Anr. [(2019) 11 SCC 706], to contend that an undisputed document of sterling quality can be looked into to quash a proceeding. However, as the State, referring to the said document, rightly pointed out, while the physical execution of the receipt is not denied, its actual scope, the surrounding circumstances, and whether it covered every single item of Stridhan or if certain assets were withheld are intensely disputed questions of fact, as such the State does not accept the comprehensive coverage or the uncontroverted effect of the document to quash the charge under Section 406 IPC. Whether the receipt covered every single item entrusted, or whether certain assets were withheld, are disputed questions of fact. As repeatedly held by the Apex Court in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Kaptan Singh (supra), the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot embark upon an appreciation of defence- side documents or conduct a mini-trial to test their veracity at the threshold. The reliability of this document (receipt) is a matter of evidence to be tested during trial or presented at the stage of discharge. The second question is also answered in the negative, against the petitioner. 8 CRR 2264 OF 2024 10. Dealing with the third question relating to the nature of the allegations, whether they are general, sweeping, and omnibus lacking "grave suspicion" as urged by the petitioner, I am fully conscious of the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam, (supra), Abhishek, (supra), Dr. Sushil Kumar Pubrey, (supra), State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Ors. [(1977) 2 SCC 699], and Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. [(1979) 3 SCC 4] regarding the misuse of Section 498A against family members. They should not be dragged into criminal trials on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations. However, those decisions apply where there is a total absence of incriminating material or where relatives live separately. In the instant case, the petitioner is specifically named in the complaint, and the investigating agency, after examining independent witnesses and gathering incriminating materials against the petitioner under Sections 406 and 498A of the IPC, has submitted a charge-sheet. 11. As enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pratima Mohanty (supra) and Sunita Kumari @ Gudiya v. State of U.P.[2023 Supreme (SC) 318], once an independent investigation yields prima facie material resulting in a charge-sheet, this Court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the investigating agency to declare the allegations as bald or unverified at the threshold. The third question is accordingly also answered in the negative, against the petitioner. 12. Finally, coming to the fourth question regarding delay in lodging the FIR, abuse of process, and the plea of a malicious counterblast, I find 9 CRR 2264 OF 2024 that the complaint contains specific explanations regarding the time gap between the ouster of the O.P. No. 2 from her matrimonial home on December 27, 2023 and filing of the complaint on March 31, 2024, attributing the said delay to attempts at reconciliation and infant care. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Skoda Auto Volkswagen (supra) and Rupali Devi (supra), has held that questions of delay, psychological continuity of cruelty, and malicious intent cannot be decided on mere affidavits at the threshold stage especially when the complaint itself explains the delay through post-pregnancy medical complications and infant care. 13. Furthermore, under Rupali Devi (supra), the psychological trauma and mental cruelty under Section 498A IPC continue to operate even after the wife leaves the matrimonial home, thereby sustaining territorial jurisdiction at Maheshtala, as per the law laid down in Satvinder Kaur (supra). 14. Moreover, as held in Prashant Bharti (supra) and Taramani Parakh (supra) where a charge-sheet is filed disclosing a prima facie case, the appropriate statutory forum for an accused to seek exoneration based on defence documents, lack of specific evidence, or mala-fide is by filing an application for discharge before the learned Trial Court under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. The fourth question is accordingly answered, against the petitioner. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings, I am of the considered view that no case for quashing the connected criminal proceeding arising out of the Maheshtala Police Station Case No. 154/24 dated 10 CRR 2264 OF 2024 March 31, 2024 as well as the consequential charge-sheet is made out in this revisional application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 16. Accordingly, C.R.R. No. 2264 of 2024 stands dismissed. 17. Any interim order of stay passed earlier stands vacated. 18. However, it is explicitly made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the document acknowledging the receipt of Stridhan articles or the individual involvement of the petitioner for the purpose of a trial. 19. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to urge all points raised in this application, including the plea of discharge and the evaluation of the Stridhan acknowledgment receipt, by filing a comprehensive application for discharge under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court. 20. If such an application is filed within four weeks from date, the learned Trial Court shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law, expeditiously and uninfluenced by any observations made in this judgment. 21. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted down to the Learned Trial Court forthwith along with the Trial Court Records. 22. There shall be no order as to costs. 23. Case diary, be returned to the Learned Counsel for the State. 24. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Uday Kumar, J.)