IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR CRR 2055 OF 2023 DHONI RUIDAS AND OTHERS -VS- THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER For the Petitioners : Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Mr. Koustav Banerjee. For the State : Mr. Utsav Dutta. Reserved on : 10.09.2026 Pronounced on : 24.09.2026 UDAY KUMAR, J.: – 1. The instant criminal revisional application under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred by the petitioners, comprising of the petitioner no.1, who is the daughter-in-law of the O.P. No. 2, and her family members/relatives seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings arising out of Dubrajpur Police Station Case No. 54 of 2022 dated April 01, 2022, under Sections 448/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, corresponding to Charge-Sheet No. 87 of 2022 dated April 30, 2022 (G.R. Case No. 121 of 2 CRR 2055 OF 2023 2022), now pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dubrajpur, Birbhum. 2. The factual matrix culminating in the filing of the present revisional application reveals a bitter matrimonial discord between Petitioner No. 1, Dhoni Ruidas, and Prashanta Das (son of Opposite Party No. 2). The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and the son of Opposite Party No. 2 was solemnized on February 04, 2020, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, and a female child, Kefa Das, was born in wedlock, on May 16, 2021. 3. The core genesis of the criminal dispute, however, traces back to allegations of matrimonial cruelty, demands for additional dowry, and physical abuse. Consequent thereto, Petitioner No. 1 lodged a formal written complaint before the Jamuria Police Station, which was registered as Jamuria Police Station Case No. 22 of 2022 on January 14, 2022, under Sections 498A/406/377/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against Opposite Party No. 2 and his family members. It is the specific case of the petitioners that subsequently, on February 20, 2022, when the petitioners visited the matrimonial home at Metela to recover and collect the stridhan articles, Opposite Party No. 2 and his family members physically prevented them from entering the premises and hurled dire threats. 4. As a counter-blast to the criminal proceedings and the demand for stridhan articles initiated by the wife, Opposite Party No. 2 filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 3 CRR 2055 OF 2023 registered as M.P. Case No. 13 of 2022, which culminated in the registration of Dubrajpur Police Station Case No. 54 of 2022 on April 01, 2022, under Sections 448/323/506/379/34 IPC against the present seven petitioners. Following a perfunctory investigation, the police submitted Charge-Sheet No. 87 of 2022 on April 30, 2022, under Sections 448/323/506/34 IPC, omitting Section 379 IPC due to lack of evidence, but mechanically hauling up all family members of the wife on the aforesaid selfsame charges. 5. Upon a comprehensive perusal of the materials on record, the rival submissions of the learned counsels, and the statutory framework, the following questions arise for determination by this Court: (I) Whether the impugned criminal proceeding initiated by Opposite Party No. 2 in Dubrajpur Police Station Case No. 54 of 2022 constitutes a clear-cut, malicious counter-blast and a retaliatory abuse of the process of law, designed solely to retaliate against the first 498A IPC proceedings instituted by Petitioner No. 1; (II) Whether the allegations made in the First Information Report and the consequential charge-sheet, even if accepted at their face value and in their entirety, disclose the essential ingredients of the offenses punishable under Sections 448, 323, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code; (III) Whether the investigation conducted by the police was perfunctory, mechanical, and vitiated by structural 4 CRR 2055 OF 2023 impossibilities, including the absence of any medical evidence substantiating physical hurt; and (IV) Whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to an abuse of the process of the court, warranting the invocation of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to secure the ends of justice. 6. Addressing the first point for determination, this Court must examine the temporal proximity and sequence of events between the two criminal litigations. The record indisputably demonstrates that Petitioner No. 1 initiated criminal action against the opposite party camp by lodging her written complaint, leading to the registration of Jamuria Police Station Case No. 22 of 2022 on January 14, 2022, under Section 498A/406/377/506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. This was followed by a visit by the petitioners to the matrimonial home on February 20, 2022, to retrieve the rightful stridhan articles of the petitioner no.1-wife. 7. It was only thereafter, as an apparent retaliatory counter-blast, that Opposite Party No. 2 lodged a written complaint before the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, resulting in the registration of Dubrajpur Police Station Case No. 54 of 2022 on April 01, 2022. The timing of the complaint reveals a textbook pattern of retaliatory criminal litigation aimed at exerting undue pressure on a wife who has taken recourse to legal remedies against matrimonial cruelty. 5 CRR 2055 OF 2023 8. As authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark ruling of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], and subsequently reiterated in Mahmood Ali & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [(2023) 15 SCC 488], where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and is instituted maliciously with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused due to private and personal grudges (such as pending matrimonial and dowry disputes), the High Court is duty-bound to step in and quash such proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of any court. The first question for determination is accordingly answered in the affirmative, in favour of the petitioners. 9. Proceeding to the second question for determination, this Court has meticulously examined the contents of the FIR and the charge-sheet materials to verify whether the foundational ingredients of Sections 448, 323, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC are prima facie made out. 10. To sustain a charge under Section 448 IPC (punishment for house- trespass), the prosecution must establish that the accused entered into or upon property in possession of another with intent to commit an offense or to intimidate, insult, or annoy any person in possession of such property. Here, Petitioner No. 1 is the legally wedded wife who visited the matrimonial home accompanied by family members solely for the lawful purpose of retrieving her stridhan articles, following her ouster and the initiation of criminal proceedings on charges of dowry harassment. There was no unlawful entry with criminal intent. 6 CRR 2055 OF 2023 11. Similarly, regarding Section 323 IPC (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), the investigating agency completely failed to collect, exhibit, or produce any medical examination report or injury report concerning Opposite Party No. 2 or any family member, confirming that no physical hurt whatsoever was sustained or treated. As for Section 506 IPC (punishment for criminal intimidation), the allegations are vague, general, and omnibus in nature, devoid of any specific attribution of words or threats capable of causing real alarm. 12. As held by the Apex Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam [(2013) 12 SCC 406] and Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 741], suspicion and general omnibus allegations without concrete materials specifying individual overt acts cannot take the place of legal proof, and criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to proceed against family members on mechanical and vague assertions. The second question for determination is accordingly answered in the negative, in favour of the petitioners. 13. Dealing with the third question for determination, this Court notes that the investigating agency conducted the investigation in a remarkably perfunctory and mechanical manner. The charge-sheet was submitted within a span of less than 30 days from the date of registration of the FIR. More importantly, the investigating officer failed to secure any medical records or injury reports substantiating the allegations of physical assault, and completely ignored the cross-implications arising from the prior 498A IPC proceeding pending between the selfsame parties. 7 CRR 2055 OF 2023 14. A mechanical investigation that turns a blind eye to contemporaneous legal proceedings and fails to gather fundamental objective evidence (such as injury reports for the charge under Section 323 IPC) suffers from patent perversity. The third question for determination is also answered in the affirmative, in favour of the petitioners. 15. Synthesizing the discussions across all preceding points, the fourth question for determination asks whether this is a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. 16. In light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Vineet Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2017) 13 SCC 369] and Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2023) 16 SCC 666], the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose, which is that a court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. Where the allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offense, and where the continuation of the criminal proceeding is manifestly tainted with mala fides and vengeance, allowing the trial to proceed would result in a gross miscarriage of justice. The fourth question for determination is also answered in the affirmative, in favour of the petitioners. 17. In view of the findings recorded above answering all the points for determination in favour of the petitioners, the criminal revisional application succeeds. C.R.R. No. 2055 of 2022 is hereby allowed. 18. The entire criminal proceeding arising out of Dubrajpur Police Station Case No. 54 of 2022 dated April 01, 2022, under Sections 8 CRR 2055 OF 2023 448/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, corresponding to Charge-Sheet No. 87 of 2022 dated April 30, 2022 (G.R. Case No. 121 of 2022), now pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dubrajpur, Birbhum, is hereby quashed and set aside as against all the petitioners. 19. Interim order, if there be any, shall stand vacated. 20. There shall be no order as to costs. 21. Let a copy of this judgment along with the Trial Court Records be transmitted immediately to the Trial Court for information and necessary compliance. 22. Case diary, be returned to the Learned Counsel for the State. 23. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Uday Kumar, J.)