23.09.2026 Sl. No.01. D/L. Mithun. Ct.No.29. CRR 36 of 2026 Basanti Sharma & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Somopriyo Chowdhury Ms. Anamika Pandey …for the petitioners Mr. Soham Banerjee …for the O.P. no. 2 Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. PP Mr. Sagar Saha Ms. Nayana Mukhopadhyay …for the State Affidavit of service filed by the petitioners is taken on record. Report submitted by the State is also taken on record. In this application, the petitioners have assailed the proceeding being G.R. Case No.2561 of 2025 presently pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barrackpore under Sections 85 and 316(2) of the BNS, 2023. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner nos.1 and 2 are the parents-in-law (aged about 62 years and 70 years) and petitioner no.3 is the married sister-in-law of the de facto complainant. The opposite party no.2 in her written complaint alleged that she was married to a co-accused, Pradip Sharma (who is not the petitioner herein) on 6th March, 2025 and shortly after her marriage she was subjected to mental and physical torture by the accused persons. She was assaulted by her husband and other in-laws on 21st April, 2025 and after the incident, she lodged a complaint with 2 the Asansol (North) Police Station. However, it was not accepted and for which she lodged the complaint at the police station near her paternal home. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet submitted against the petitioners along with the co-accused Pradip Sharma. However, other accused Rekha Sharma was not charge-sheeted. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the written complaint and the materials collected during investigation do not disclose the prima facie case against the present petitioners under Section 85 of the BNS. The prosecution case also does not support the allegation of criminal breach of trust as enumerated under Section 316(2) of the BNS. There is nothing to show that the petitioners have misappropriated any of the stridhan articles of the opposite party no.2. He further submits that the opposite party no.2 has intentionally implicated the petitioners in spite of the fact that they are no way connected with the matrimonial life of the opposite party no.2. Furthermore, no specific allegations against the petitioners has been attributed in the complaint. There is no material or allegation to support the case of “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 85 of the BNS or “entrustment” within the meaning of Section 316(2) of the BNS in respect of the present petitioners. The petitioner no.3 is the married sister-in-law who all along resided at her own matrimonial home and did not reside at the matrimonial home of the opposite party no.2. Therefore, further continuance of the impugned proceeding against the 3 present petitioners would be mere abuse of the process of the Court. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant opposed such prayer and submits that during investigation sufficient materials have been collected which constitutes offences alleged in the FIR. The case is now pending for charge hearing and at this stage it would not be proper to quash the proceeding invoking this Court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State placed a memo of evidence dated 21.09.2026. She further pointed out that statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation under Section 180 of the BNSS and also the injury report where the husband has been stated to be the assailant. I have considered submissions made on behalf of all the parties. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR and the materials collected during investigation, it is revealed that general allegation levelled against the petitioners is that after few days of her marriage, her husband and in-laws assaulted her both physically and mentally day after day and on 21.04.2025, the husband and her in-laws assaulted her brutally, though injury report discloses, she was physically assaulted by her husband. No distinct or and specific allegation has been made against any of the petitioners herein i.e. none of the petitioners have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. In so far as 4 husband is concerned, since he is not before me, I have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as present petitioners are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution. The Supreme Court in catena of judgments have deprecated the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial dispute without analyzing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the judgements that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore Supreme Court by way of it’s judgements has warned the Courts from proceeding against the relative and in-laws of the husband, when no prima facie case is made out against them. (Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) reported in (2022)1 SCR 558. In this case available materials clearly show that the de facto complainant out of vengeance and to spite the present petitioners have entangled the entire family members without mentioning the specific role to be attributable to them. The charge-sheet also does not disclose what role has been played by each of the petitioners in committing the alleged offence. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it clearly reveals that there is hardly any chance of conviction of the present petitioners, even if a façade trial is allowed to continue. 5 In such view of the matter, I find that this is a fit case where the proceeding is required to be quashed invoking this Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNS qua the petitioners. In view of above, CRR 36 of 2026 is allowed. The impugned proceeding being G.R. Case No.2561 of 2025, presently pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barrackpore is hereby quashed qua the petitioners, namely, Basanti Sharma, Umesh Sharma and Anju Sharma. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)