25.9.2026 Court No.34 Sl. No.22 sg CRR 1310 of 2022 In the matter of : Sk. Saifuddin & Ors. ..Petitioners. Mr. Tapan Dutta Gupta Mr. Parvej Anam Ms. Rituparna Ghosh Mr. Sourav Sardar …for the petitioners. Mr. Sagar Saha Ms. Nayana Mukhopadhyay …for the State. 1. The instant revisional application has been filed by the petitioner being the husband and parents-in-law and sister-in-law of the opposite party no.2 with a prayer for quashing of the entire proceeding pending before the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Katwa, Purba Bardhaman. 2. From the record that it can be found that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 21.2.2010 and they were blessed with female child (name). Later on marital discord developed between the parties and over the same on account of not maintaining minor child properly the present opposite party no.2 had to lodge the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. being case No. 104 of 2017 which was pending. After that in the year 8.11.2018 a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 2 before the I.C. Katwa Police Station, District Purba Medinipur against the present petitioners alleging the physical and mental torture severely since after marriage. She was threatened further to withdraw the above mentioned proceeding over phone and lastly on 6.11.2018 in the evening all of them came to her paternal home and physically assaulted, throttled her neck and somehow she saved herself as on hearing hue and cry the other persons assembled. She also alleged that other than the husband the parents-in-law and other FIR named accused persons also assaulted her by fist and blows 3. Over the same the Katwa Police case no. 582 of 2018 under Sections 498A/325/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code started. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet was submitted under the aforesaid Sections against the present petitioners. Learned Court considered the materials and the charge was framed and the contents of the same were read over and explained to the petitioners who claimed to be not guilty and hence the witness action started . The charge was framed on December, 2019. This revisional application was filed in the year, 2022 by the petitioner for quashing of the proceeding. 4. Learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that entire allegations levelled against the petitioners are false and fabricated and nothing has been made out in the written complaint which can attract any of the offences under which this 3 case has been initiated. It is further submitted that marriage is of 2010 and the child was born from their wedlock and the allegations levelled against the present petitioners are vague and omnibus in nature. 5. The investigating authority without considering any materials or the statements recorded during investigation submitted the charge sheet mechanically and according prays for quashing of the proceeding against the petitioners. 6. Learned prosecution, on the other hand, opposes and submits that in course of investigation materials were collected by the I.O which contents certain incriminating factors which are enough to constitute the aforesaid offences. 7. It is further her case that not only physical but also mental cruelty which persisted in this case as can be evident from the statement so collected. In addition medical certificate was also collected during investigation which supports the contention of prosecution case. 8. Heard the submission of both the learned advocates and perused the materials on records, the contents of the written complaint and also the Case Diary. It is evident that the marriage is not disputed and also that the marriage was consummated and a girl child was born from such wedlock. The contents of the complaint prima facie disclosed that she was tortured physically and mentally but the complaint is devoid of any specific details, of 4 the torture inflicted on her and/or the mode and manner of torture and the role attributed by the petitioner no 2 to5. No specific details of the date when she left the matrimonial house or she was driven out from her there since she was residing at her matrimonial home till 2010 till the date of lodging the instant complaint. For such long span of matrimonial life despite facing day to day torture on account of nonfulfillment the demand of money, no prior complaint was lodged from her side against any of the petitioners. 9. The First Information Report is absolutely silent about the date when lastly she resided at her matrimonial house though she has mentioned that a proceeding for maintenance was filed by her in the year, 2017. The alleged date of incident mentioned in the year, 2018. It is apparent from the said written complaint that the petitioners went to her paternal home where the entire incident of physical assault happened which proves at the time of incident means in on 6.11.2018 she was living at her father’s house. In this case after completion of investigation the charge sheet has been submitted where no materials could be found to attract 325/307 IPC and those charges were deleted. Therefore prima facie the serious allegations levelled against the petitioners for attempt to murder could not be established due to lack of materials. 5 10. On close scrutiny the materials of Case Diary it appears that the statement recorded by the investigating authority prima facie shows about an incident alleged on 6.11.2018 when there was some altercation took place at her father’s house. 11. On careful scrutiny of the overall facts and circumstances no specific role is found to have been attributed so far the petitioner nos. 2,3,4 and 5 are concerned . The only date has been mentioned in the written complaint is on 6.11.2018 when lastly alleges that the petitioners came to her paternal house however certain materials are found against the petitioner no.1 over the allegation of physical assault. The investigating officers also collected medical papers about such allegation of physical assault, the veracity of the same ought to have been tested during trial . 12. It is settled proposition of law that under Section 482 Cr.P.C, corresponding to Section 528 BNSS empowers the Court to exercise its inherent power only in the exceptional circumstances in order to prevent the abuse of process of law or prevent gross miss-carriage of justice. There are catena of decisions specially in the decision of Preeti Gupta and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Another (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667 where it was held in paragraph 14 : “14. This Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts’ powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex 6 debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent the abuse of process of court. Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised: (i)to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii)to prevent the abuse of process of court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 13. In paragraph 18 of the aforesaid judgement it was mentioned that power under Section 482 of the High Court is very wide and the very plentitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Usually the High Court should normally refrain from giving prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court. 14. In the decision of Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Case 741 the Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically mentioned about the misuse of provision of Section 498A and where family members of the daughter-in-law or the husband of the complainant are being entangled without being any details of specific roles by any of them. 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed a series of decisions of as well as celebrated decision of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal. It is the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, it is matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498A Cr.P.C IPC are filed in the hit of 7 the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern. 16. It was further observed and held “The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At time, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.” 17. In the instant case the petitioner no.5 is a resident of Murshidabad when the petitioners are resident of Burdwan.No iota of the role played by the petitioner no.5 can be found from the 8 fore corners of the complaint excepting some general and omnibus allegation. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Mange Ram vs State of M.P 2025 INSC 962 referred the decision of Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735 where Supreme Court has made it clear that family members of the husband ought not to be unnecessarily roped into criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord. The Court observed that it has become a recurring tendency to implicate every member of the husband’s family, irrespective of their role or actual involvement, merely because a dispute has arisen between the spouses. It was further held that where the allegations are bereft of specific particulars, and particularly where the relatives sought to be prosecuted are residing separately or have had no connection with the matrimonial home, allowing the prosecution to proceed would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 19. Considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case as discussed above this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case where inherent power should be exercised in order to prevent abuse of the process of law. There was no iota of materials against petitioner nos. 2 to 5 in the complaint or in the materials collected which can attract any of the offences mentioned hereinabove and hence the proceeding is liable to be 9 quashed against them. So far the petitioner husband is concerned since prima facie certain materials are available the veracity of the same cannot be ascertained by this court by holding a mini trial the proceeding will continue before the learned Court in accordance with law. 20. Accordingly this revisional application is partly allowed. 21. Hence the entire proceedings being G.R case no 878 of 2018 arising out of Katwa Police Station case No.582 of 2018 under sections 498A /325/307/506 /34 and charge sheet submitted under section 498A/323/506/34 IPC pending before the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Katwa, Purba Bardhaman stands quashed against the petitioner no.s 2 to 5. 22. All connected applications if any stand disposed of. 23. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. [Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.]