28.09.2026 Item No.55 Court No.30 g.b. Calcutta High Court Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side CRR 5121 of 2024 Sushanta @ Susanta Naskar. Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta Mr. Sachin Talukdar ….For the Petitioner Mr. Amartya Ghose Mr. P. Dan ….For the State 1. The petitioner has challenged the proceeding being G.R. No. 1463 of 2024 arising out of Sonarpur Police Station Case No. 232/2024 dated 27.02.2024 under Sections 498A/323/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code initiated by the opposite party No. 2 on the basis of a petition of complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 primarily on the grounds that on the basis of self-same allegations a prior proceeding had already been initiated at the behest of the opposite party No. 2 and that the impugned proceeding is a counter blast to a proceeding initiated much prior by the petitioner against the opposite party No. 2. 2. The petitioner further denies the factum of marriage with the opposite party No. 2 and it is his specific case 2 that the opposite party No. 2 is not his legally wedded wife. 3. On 09.08.2023 the petitioner initiated Sonarpur Police Station Case No. 834 of 2023 under Sections 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code for investigation against the opposite party No. 2, Puspa Das (Mother of the opposite party No. 2) and Netai Chandra Das (Father of opposite party No. 2). Allegations in the complaint were to the effect that the opposite party No. 2 along with her family members duped and cheated the petitioner to part with jewellery and furniture worth lakhs of rupees on the pretext that the opposite party No. 2 is an unmarried lady and that she intends to marry the petitioner. 4. On 26.08.2023 Baruipur Police Station Case No. 1084 of 2023 under Sections 498A, 323, 406 of the Indian Penal Code registered against the petitioner at the behest of the opposite party No. 2. Allegations were to the effect that subsequent to the marriage of the petitioner with the opposite party No.2, she had been subjected to both physical and mental torture. She goes on to allege that on 21.08.2023 she had been driven out from her rented accommodation and the petitioner broke her household articles while leaving with the articles mentioned in the written complaint. 3 She also alleged to have been strangulated by the petitioner. 5. On 27.02.2024 Sonarpur Police Station Case No. 232 of 2024 dated 27.02.2024 on the basis of self same allegations as above lodged by the opposite party No. 2 against the petitioner and others alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 379, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Allegations made were to the effect that the opposite party No. 2 resided with the petitioner at an accommodation rented out by the co-accused namely, Jiban Sarkar. She goes on to allege that during her stay at the aforementioned accommodation, apart from the petitioner and his mother, the landlord as aforesaid and his family members used to torture her. 6. She further alleges that the petitioner was involved in an illicit relationship with the land lord's wife and when she protested, she used to be beaten up. The opposite party No. 2 further states that when she along with her mother went to Sonarpur Police Station to lodge a diary, the petitioner along with the land lord locked her house and also stole all her belongings. Upon confronting the land lord and his family members, they allegedly abused her and asked her to leave the premises. They purportedly also threatened to kill her unless she complies with the same. She 4 goes on to allege that on 15.01.2024, while she was residing with her mother, the accused came to her residence and intimidated her since she had lodged a case against them. Further, they allegedly caught hold of her neck and when her mother attempted to rescue her, they pushed her aside causing her to fall. In the impugned First Information Report in addition to the petitioner and his mother, the landlord and his family members have also been roped in. 7. The petitioner states that the impugned proceeding is a counter blast to the First Information Report lodged first in time by the petitioner against the opposite party No. 2 and her family for cheating misappropriation of jewellery and furniture. 8. The allegations giving rise to both the First Information Report lodged by the opposite party No. 2 are one and the same. While in 1st First Information Report only the petitioner had been arraigned as an accused, in the impugned 2nd First Information Report in addition to the petitioner, the landlord along with his family members have also been arraigned as an accused. 9. The State has placed the case diary. 10. Section 498A of IPC, lays down:- “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the 5 husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means— (a)any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. Ingredients of offence. -The essential ingredients of the offence under sec. 498A are as follows:- (1) A woman was married; (2) She was subjected to cruelty; (3) Such cruelty consisted in - (i) any lawful conduct as was likely to drive such woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health whether mental or physical; (ii) harm to such woman with a view to coercing her to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security or on account of failure of such woman or any of her relations to meet the lawful demand; (iii) the woman was subjected to such cruelty by her husband or any relation of her husband.” 11. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. vs State of Telangana & Anr., in Criminal Appeal No. ………… of 2024 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 16239 of 2024, decided on December 10, 2024, the Supreme Court held:- 6 “15. An offence is punishable under Section 498A of the IPC when a husband or his relative subjects a woman to cruelty, which may result in imprisonment for a term extending up to three years and a fine. The Explanation under Section 498A of the IPC defines “cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498A of the IPC to mean any of the acts mentioned in clauses (a) or (b). The first limb of clause (a) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC, states that “cruelty” means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. The second limb of clause (a) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC, states that cruelty means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. Further, clause (b) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC states that cruelty would also include harassment of the woman where such harassment is to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 16. Further, Section 3 of the Dowry Act deals with penalty for giving or taking dowry. It states that any person who engages in giving, taking, or abetting the exchange of dowry, shall face a punishment of imprisonment for a minimum of five years and a fine of not less than fifteen thousand rupees or the value of the dowry, whichever is greater. Section 4 of the Dowry Act talks of penalty for demanding dowry. It states that any person demanding dowry directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardians of a bride or bridegroom shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. 18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific 7 details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations. 25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well- recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. 28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics 8 by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them. 29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case. 30. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 observed as follows: “12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court 9 of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts.” 31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband’s close relatives 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. 32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants.” 12. 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 10 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. (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.” 11 13. The present case is thus clearly covered by the guidelines in State of Haryana vs Bhajanlal (Supra) (Para 102). 14. Prima facie it also appears to be a family property dispute, between the de facto complainant and her husband on one side and the other family members (in laws) on the other. 15. The materials in the case diary in the present case shows that the allegations are general in nature. As such permitting the case to proceed against the petitioner herein, will clearly be an abuse of the process of law, considering that none of the ingredients required to constitute the offences alleged are present against the petitioner herein. 16. CRR 5121 of 2024 is thus allowed. 17. The proceeding being G.R. No. 1463 of 2024 arising out of Sonarpur Police Station Case No. 232/2024 dated 27.02.2024 under Sections 498A/323/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioner namely Sushanta @ Susanta Naskar. 18. All connected applications, if any, stands disposed of. 19. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 20. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance. 12 21. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)