IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR CRR 2658 OF 2025 BIDHAN CHANDRA CHANDRA -VS- STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. For the Petitioner : Mr. Debabrata Acharyya Mr. Sital Samanta For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Susanto Pal Mr. Sanchayita De For the State : Mr. Ramashis Mukherjee, Mr. Neel Chakraborty Reserved on : 21.09.2026 Pronounced on : 29.09.2026 UDAY KUMAR, J.: – 1. By this criminal revisional application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), the petitioner-husband has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court seeking the quashing of the criminal proceedings relating to Bolpur Police Station Case No. 338 of 2021 dated September 13, 2021, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1128 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 506, 509 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, currently pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Bolpur, Birbhum. 2 CRR 2658 OF 2025 2. The foundational backdrop unfurling from the records presents a deeply tragic chronicle of marital life, personal misfortune, and subsequent collateral litigation. The marriage between the petitioner, Bidhan Chandra Chandra, and the deceased daughter of Opposite Party No. 2, Smt. Abhirupa Chandra Das, was solemnized on March 10, 2016, as per Hindu rites and customs, and from this wedlock, a male child, Abhiraj Chandra, was born on November 28, 2017. Soon after, in December 2017, the father-in-law of the petitioner passed away, leaving behind a fertilizer and pesticide business at Bolpur. Desirous of managing her late father's enterprise, the deceased wife expressed her wish to do so, whereupon the petitioner, acting with commendable spousal support and encouragement, facilitated her vocational training and enabled her to take charge of the establishment. Consequently, due to the operational requirements of the business and the tender age of the child, the wife primarily resided at her parental home in Bolpur, while the petitioner frequently visited them from Kolkata, and the wife also visited her matrimonial home from time to time. 3. The tragedy that fractured this family occurred on April 21, 2021, when the petitioner's wife unfortunately succumbed to COVID-19 at a private nursing home in Durgapur. It is an admitted position on record that she had been residing continuously at her parental home in Bolpur since October 2019 up until her untimely demise, meaning the couple did not share a common roof for nearly two years preceding her death. The legal battleground, however, shifted dramatically from grief to custody when the petitioner sought the custody of his minor son as the 3 CRR 2658 OF 2025 natural guardian. Upon encountering resistance from the maternal relatives, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.A. No. 12540 of 2021, wherein a coordinate Bench relegated him to the appropriate statutory forum under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, pursuant to which the petitioner instituted Misc. Case No. 44 of 2021 before the Court of the Learned District Judge, Birbhum. 4. As a direct counterblast to this legal pursuit for child custody, Opposite Party No. 2 lodged a belated written complaint before the Bolpur Police Station on September 13, 2021 nearly five months after the death of the deceased wife, alleging offenses under Sections 498A, 506, 509 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the petitioner and his family members. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was submitted on March 10, 2022 under the selfsame sections. At this juncture, it is vital to take note that the parents of the petitioner previously approached this Court by filing C.R.R. No. 2448 of 2023, which was allowed by a coordinate Bench on January 9, 2025, quashing the proceeding qua the parents. The petitioner now stands before this Court seeking identical relief for himself. 5. Assailing this proceeding, Mr. Debabrata Acharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contends that the entire criminal proceeding is a fabricated and malicious afterthought, ridden with inherent contradictions, vague omnibus allegations, and a total absence of ingredients attracting Section 498A IPC or allied sections. It was argued that the couple did not share a common roof since October 2019, that the wife succumbed to COVID-19 at a private hospital in Durgapur over 4 CRR 2658 OF 2025 which the petitioner had no control, and that the belated FIR filed five months after the death of the wife alleging offences under Section 498A IPC, is an absolute abuse of process of the Court designed solely to retaliate against the petitioner's custody petitions. 6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the landmark decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayan & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr. [(2025) 3 SCC 735], specifically referring to paragraphs 27, 28, and 31 of the report regarding the misuse of Section 498A IPC against family members. He submitted that personal vengeance motivated this criminal proceeding, initiated months after the demise of the wife and daughter of the complainant, solely because the petitioner, being the natural guardian seeking the better upbringing of his minor son, instituted Misc. Case No. 44 of 2021 before the civil court for child custody upon refusal by the opposite parties. He further pointed out that no contemporaneous complaint regarding cruelty was ever made by the wife while she was alive, that financial remittances were regularly sent by the petitioner during her stay at Bolpur, and that the ratio of quashing by the coordinate Bench in C.R.R. No. 2448 of 2023 squarely applies to the petitioner on grounds of parity. 7. Per contra, Mr. Susanto Pal, learned counsel for the opposite parties, strongly urged that the chargesheet, the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC, the seizure lists, and the medical treatment documents available on the case diary disclose a strong prima facie case of cruelty and harassment. It was argued that the 5 CRR 2658 OF 2025 sufficiency of materials at the investigation stage warrants putting the accused to trial and that this Court, under its revisional jurisdiction, ought not to stifle a prosecution where disputed questions of fact are involved. 8. Expanding on his submissions, learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that there is sufficient materials on record to attract Section 498A IPC, alleging that the maternal uncle was influential in family decisions, that the petitioner inflicted mental torture upon the deceased wife alongside the mother-in-law and father-in-law, and that the petitioner failed to provide adequate financial support for the deceased wife, denying her proper medical treatment. He further argued that these allegations attract offences under Sections 506 and 509 IPC, that Section 498A is a continuous offense so the absence of instant physical acts of torture does not vitiate the case, and that living away from a spouse can itself amount to mental cruelty. As regards the bank statements produced by the petitioner, counsel submitted that those monetary remittances were insufficient to maintain a prestigious life in society, concluding that these are disputed questions of fact to be decided by the trial court and not throttled at the threshold. 9. Upon a careful consideration of the pleadings, materials on record, and the rival submissions advanced by the respective counsel, the following questions emerge for determination by this Court: i. Whether the criminal proceeding initiated nearly five months after the unfortunate demise of the petitioner's wife due to COVID-19, and in the backdrop of a prolonged physical 6 CRR 2658 OF 2025 separation since October 2019, discloses the essential ingredients of an offense under Section 498A, 506, and 509 of the IPC against the petitioner? ii. Whether the institution of the criminal case is manifestly attended with mala fides as a retaliatory counterblast to the petitioner's legal pursuit for child custody under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and whether the continuation of the same constitutes an abuse of the process of the court warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS? 10. To properly evaluate the first question, I must advert to the foundational parameters governing matrimonial offenses. Section 498A IPC penalizes cruelty by a husband or his relative, which is defined as either wilful conduct of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health, or harassment of the woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand. It is a well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence that to attract Section 498A, there must be a close proximity of time and direct, specific attribution of continuous harassment or cruelty. 11. In the instant case, the undisputed factual matrix reveals that the matrimonial home was situated at Kolkata, whereas the deceased wife had been residing continuously and voluntarily at her parental home in Bolpur since October 2019 to manage her late father's fertilizer business. This arrangement was facilitated with the express spousal support and encouragement of the petitioner. Consequently, the couple 7 CRR 2658 OF 2025 did not share a common roof for nearly two years preceding her unfortunate death on April 21, 2021, at a private nursing home in Durgapur due to COVID-19. This prolonged and voluntary physical separation completely severs the necessary proximity required to substantiate general allegations of ongoing domestic cruelty and is insufficient to fasten criminal liability under Section 498A IPC onto the petitioner. 12. The opposite parties' contention that "living away from a spouse itself amounts to mental cruelty" or that Section 498A is a continuous offense cannot be accepted in a vacuum, particularly when the separation was mutually agreed upon for vocational and business pursuits. Furthermore, the bank statements and financial records placed on record conclusively negate the plea of financial deprivation or willful neglect, demonstrating that the petitioner regularly remitted funds to his late wife's account for her and the child's upkeep. 13. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayan (supra) is highly apposite. The Apex Court has time and again deprecated the tendency of roping in family members and spouses through vague, omnibus, and belated allegations after a tragedy has struck, where no contemporaneous complaint was ever lodged during the lifetime of the deceased. The cause of death- a global medical pandemic (COVID-19) has no nexus or proximity to any act of marital discord or domestic violence attributed to the petitioner. 8 CRR 2658 OF 2025 14. Therefore, upon a meticulous scrutiny of the application, complaint, case diary, the statements under Section 161 CrPC, and the surrounding facts, I have no hesitation in concluding that Question No. (i) must be answered in the negative. The essential ingredients of an offense under Sections 498A, 506, and 509 IPC are completely absent, and the allegations are inherently improbable and devoid of legal foundation. 15. The second and final question for determination requires this Court to examine whether the institution of the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides as a retaliatory counterblast to the petitioner's legal pursuit for child custody under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and whether its continuation constitutes an abuse of the process of the court warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS (Section 482 CrPC). 16. To test the bona fides of the prosecution, this Court must look closely at the chronological sequence of events. The tragic demise of the petitioner's wife occurred on April 21, 2021, due to COVID-19. Despite her passing, no immediate criminal complaint or grievance regarding matrimonial cruelty was raised by her family. It was only when the petitioner, acting as the natural guardian of his minor son, Abhiraj Chandra, initiated legal measures to secure the custody of the child— first by approaching this Court in W.P.A. No. 12540 of 2021 and subsequently instituting Misc. Case No. 44 of 2021 before the Court of the Learned District Judge, Birbhum—that the opposite parties met his civil pursuit with criminal litigation. The FIR giving rise to Bolpur Police 9 CRR 2658 OF 2025 Station Case No. 338 of 2021 was lodged on September 13, 2021, representing an unexplained and stark delay of nearly five months post- death. 17. This exact temporal proximity between the initiation of custody litigation and the filing of the criminal case reveals a textbook example of a retaliatory counterblast. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark guidelines of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], where criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides, or where they are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance or settling civil/custody scores, the High Court is duty-bound to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent an abuse of the judicial process. 18. Furthermore, this Court cannot lose sight of the principle of parity. The co-accused persons namely, the elderly parents of the petitioner had previously challenged this very proceeding by filing C.R.R. No. 2448 of 2023, and a coordinate Bench of this Court, by a reasoned judgment dated January 9, 2025, was pleased to quash the proceeding qua the parents. The allegations leveled against the present petitioner stand on no higher or distinct footing, being part of the same omnibus and generalized assertions. To permit a criminal prosecution to continue against a grieving husband under such circumstances would reduce the criminal justice delivery system to an instrument of coercion in a bitter custody battle. 19. Therefore, upon a careful evaluation of the entire matrix, I hold that Question No. 2 must also be answered in the affirmative. The criminal 10 CRR 2658 OF 2025 proceeding is manifestly malicious, an afterthought, and a clear abuse of the process of the court. 20. In view of the findings recorded on both points for determination, C.R.R. No. 2658 of 2025 is allowed. 21. The criminal proceedings relating to G.R. Case No. 1128 of 2021 arising out of Bolpur Police Station Case No. 338 of 2021 dated September 13, 2021, under Sections 498A, 506, 509 read with Section 34 of the IPC, pending before the 1st Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Bolpur, Birbhum, along with the chargesheet and all consequential orders, stand hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 22. Connected pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. 23. Interim order, if there be any, stands vacated. 24. There shall be no order as to costs. 25. Trial Court Records, if called for, shall be transmitted down along with a copy of this judgment immediately to the learned Trial Court for information and necessary compliance. 26. Case diary, be returned to the Learned Counsel for the State. 27. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Uday Kumar, J.)