Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 1217
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, N.V. Anjaria, JJ.
Prasanta Kumar Dhar & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 4744 of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 16908 of 2024)
Decided On : 05-10-2026
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shashank Tripathi- 3294, AOR Mr. Nitin Nautiyal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee- 1621, AOR Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Adv. Mr. Sandip Mandal, Adv. Mr. S.k Pandey, Adv. Mr. Anshul Rai, Adv. Mr. Jatin Kumar, Adv. Mr. Varnik Kundaliya, Adv. Mr. Rahul Singh Latwal, Adv. M/s Dharmaprabhas Law Associates- 2718, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Dowry offences – In view of peculiarities of criminal cases arising out of domestic disputes, there is need for a nuanced approach and to be circumspect when applying stringent criminal principles to domestic disputes.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498A, 406 and 506 read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Cruelty, criminal breach of trust, criminal intimidation and dowry offences – Neither complaint nor investigation carried out by police reveals any material that indicates that Appellants had caused grave injury to her life, limb or mental or physical health, nor do they reveal any independent material that Appellants harassed her for any property or valuable security – Allegations do not disclose particulars of demands of dowry made by Appellants occasions, presence of any independent witnesses, or manner such that such specific overt acts constituting cruelty under Section 498A IPC were committed – Only vague and omnibus allegations have been made against Appellants without any specificity whatsoever – Allegations levelled against Appellants are not specific, cogent and credible – They do not attribute overt or specific act to either Appellant – Criminal proceedings against Appellants qua Sections 498A, 406, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act quashed. (Paras 17, 20, 21, 23, 26, 29 and 30)
Facts of the case:
High Court, by the impugned order, partly allowed the petition and quashed the charge under Section 323 IPC but held that all the other charges against the Appellants under Sections 498A, 406 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act would have to be examined in the trial.
Findings of Court:
All proceedings out of F.I.R. No. 152/2023 registered at Police Station Siliguri Women, District Darjeeling are hereby quashed insofar as the present appellants are concerned.
Result : Criminal Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and final order dated 12.11.2024 passed by the High Court of Calcutta, Jalpaiguri Circuit, in C.R.R No. 280 of 2024 whereby the High Court partly allowed the petition filed by the Appellants herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), thus partially quashing FIR No. 152/2023 dated 21.11.2023 registered at Police Station Siliguri Women, District Darjeeling, West Bengal under Sections 498A, 406, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “DP Act”) qua only Section 323 IPC, but declining to quash the proceedings with respect to the other sections.
3. The Appellants herein are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”). The complainant married the Appellants’ son on 01.02.2021 as per Hindu rites and customs in Darjeeling. The complainant and her husband initially resided in a separate town. However, after the husband was transferred to Siliguri, the complainant began to reside with the Appellants. A child was born out of the wedlock on 17.07.2023.
4. It appears that certain matrimonial disputes arose between the complainant and her husband and the Appellants pertaining to harassment and demand of dowry, because of which the complainant eventually left the matrimonial home. Thereafter, on 21.11.2023, the complainant submitted a complaint on the basis of which FIR No. 152/2023 was registered under Sections 498A, 406, 506 and 323 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act at Police Station Siliguri Women, Siliguri, West Bengal against the husband, and the two Appellants herein.
5. In the complaint, it was alleged that soon after the marriage, the complainant was subjected to verbal taunts and demands for dowry including a four-wheeler. It was further alleged that after the complainant became pregnant, the Appellants did not support her nutritionally or with her regular doctors’ visits and that upon the birth of a girl child, she was taunted and not welcomed back to the matrimonial home properly. It was also alleged that on 11.11.2023, the first Appellant and the husband went to the complainant’s parental home and compelled her to sign a document purporting to declare that she had received all her streedhan and valuable articles after she left the matrimonial house.
6. During the investigation, the parents of the complainant were examined. On completion of the investigation, Chargesheet No. 175/2023 came to be filed on 21.12.2023, charging the Appellants and the husband of the complainant under Sections 498A, 406, 506 and 323 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. The matter is currently pending before the trial court at the stage of framing of charges.
7. On 07.08.2024, the Appellants filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the chargesheet.
8. The High Court, by the impugned order, partly allowed the petition and quashed the charge under Section 323 IPC but held that all the other charges against the Appellants would have to be examined in the trial.
9. Aggrieved by the said order of the High Court, the present Appellants have approached this Court.
10. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the Appellants, as well as the Respondent-State, and the complainant at length.
11. The learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the High Court erred in confining the quashing solely to the charge under Section 323 IPC, while declining to grant the same relief qua the charges under the other sections. It is contended that the dispute is primarily a matrimonial dispute between the complainant and her husband, and that the Appellants herein have simply been roped into said matrimonial dispute because of their relationship as the in-laws. Further, it is also argued that
