30.09.2026 Ct. No. 30 Sl. No.43 skg CRR 1066 of 2023 Sumanta Ghosh & Ors. VS State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Biswajit Manna, Adv. …for the petitioner Mr. Sayak Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Harshit Jaiswal, Adv. …for the State Mr. Soumik Ganguly, Adv. Ms. Priti Barman, Adv. …for the OP no. 2 and 3 1. The revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceedings of GR Case No. 791 of 2022 pending before the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bishnupur (Bankura) which arose out of Bishnupur Police Station Case no. 162 of 2022 dated 17.08.2022 under Sections 498A/448/323/354B/506/34 of the IPC. 2. The petitioners herein are the husband and in laws of opposite party no. 3 and petitioner no.1 is the son in law of the opposite party no.2. The petitioner no.1 got married to the opposite party no.3 on 05.07.2017. On 03.04.2018 the petitioner no.1 instituted a matrimonial suit being 49 of 2018 praying for a decree of divorce against the opposite party no.3. On 18.05.2018 the opposite party no.3 appeared in the matrimonial suit. After five months i.e. on 03.10.2018, the opposite party no.3 filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the C.P.C before the learned ACJM, Bishnupur and a case being Bishnupur Police Station case no. 249 of 2018 was started for offences punishable under Section 498A/307/406/34 IPC. The petitioner states that in the year 2022 they came to know that the 2 opposite party no. 3 has married one Rajib Sarkar and is now leading a conjugal life. 3. As such on 07.07.2022, the petitioner no.1 filed a complaint under Section 494 of the IPC among other sections against the opposite party no.2, 3 and 6 others. 4. It is stated that as a counter attack, the complaint in the present proceeding has been filed by the father in law of the petitioner no.1 and the case has been registered under Section 498A/448/323/354B/506/34 IPC. 5. Considering the relationship of the complainant with the petitioners herein offence under Section 498A IPC does not apply in the present case. 6. The State is present and has placed the case diary. 7. 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 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 3 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.” 8. The present case is thus clearly covered by the guidelines in State of Haryana vs Bhajanlal (Supra) (Para 102). 9. CRR 1066 of 2023 is allowed. 10. The proceedings of GR Case No. 791 of 2022 pending before the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bishnupur (Bankura) which arose out of Bishnupur Police Station Case no. 162 of 2022 dated 17.08.2022 under Sections 498A /448 /323 /354B /506 /34 of the IPC, is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioners namely Sumanta Ghosh, Sandip Ghosh, Kanaklata Ghosh and Priti Sen. 11. All connected applications, if any, stands disposed of. 12. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 4 13. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance. 14. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal formalities. [Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.]