Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Uday Kumar, J.
Moniza Farooquee and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
State of West Bengal and Anr. – Respondents
CRR 619 of 2025
Decided on 28.4.2026
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Debabrata Acharyya, Mr. Sital Samanta
For the State: Mr. Arindam Sen, Ms. Sudeshna Das
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Cruelty and dowry offences – Criminal trial is a serious inroad into personal liberty and must not be allowed to proceed as a matter of routine when foundation is visibly fragile.
(2) Cruelty – Legislative intent behind Section 498A of IPC is to provide protective umbrella to women against “Cruelty” by husband or his relatives – Term “relative” does not imply collective criminal liability; it requires distinct overt act that links accused to alleged victimization
(3) Common intention is a state of mind that must be manifested through overt conduct pointing unequivocally to a pre-meditated, collective criminal objective.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498A – Cruelty – In assessing a prima facie case under Section 498A IPC, Court cannot operate in a vacuum of social reality – Fundamental test for continuation of a criminal proceeding is whether allegations, when viewed through lens of common human conduct and documented facts, possess a hallmark of probability – Where allegation is so inherently improbable that no prudent person could accept it as the basis for a trial, threshold for judicial intervention is met. (Paras 6.2.1)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498A, 406 and 34 read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528 – Cruelty and dowry offences – Foundational challenge to continuation of impugned proceedings rests on contention that petitioners have been “roped in” to criminal net solely by virtue of their matrimonial affinity to principal accused (Husband) – Legislative intent behind Section 498A of IPC is to provide protective umbrella to women against “Cruelty” by husband or his relatives – Term “relative” does not imply collective criminal liability; rather, it requires distinct overt act that links accused to alleged victimization – Records are conspicuously silent on specific verbal or physical triggers of instigation to principal accused – Allegations against Petitioners are purely “omnibus” and vague – In matrimonial disputes, “geographical proximity” within a metropolitan city cannot be equated with “domestic integration” – When relatives have maintained a separate, independent household for a significant period (in this case, ten years), burden on prosecution to provide specific, documented overt acts becomes absolute – Generic allegations of “instigation” or “interference” without temporal precision are insufficient to sustain criminal trial against distantly residing relatives – Criminal proceedings quashed and set aside. (Paras 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.5, 7.1 and 8.1)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 34 – Common intention – Regarding applicability of doctrine of constructive liability, Section 34 of IPC serves as a rule of evidence that attributes vicarious liability to individuals acting in furtherance of a “common intention” – To attract this provision, prosecution must establish more than a mere coincidence of presence or a shared biological lineage; it requires a “prior meeting of minds” and synchronized participation in criminal act – Common intention is a state of mind that must be manifested through overt conduct pointing unequivocally to a pre-meditated, collective criminal objective. (Para 6.4.1)
Result: Revisional Application allowed with directions.
JUDGMENT
Uday Kumar, J.—
1. Introduction
1.1. This revisional application, preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), is directed towards the quashing of the proceedings in G.R. Case no.2655 of 2023. The matter originates from Beniapukur Police Station Case no.275 of 2023 dated 08.11.2023, presently pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Sealdah, South 24-Parganas.
1.2. The petitioners herein, Moniza Farooquee and Sharik Hossain, are the married sister-in-law and brother-in-law, respectively, of the Opposite Party no.2 (the de-facto Complainant). They have been impleaded for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
1.3. The foundational challenge to the continuation of the impugned proceedings rests on the contention that the petitioners have been “roped in” to the criminal net solely by virtue of their matrimonial affinity to the principal accused (the husband). This challenge is predicated on three distinct yet interconnected grounds:—
i. a documented domestic severance exceeding a decade;
ii. the conspicuous absence of specific prima facie material linking them to the alleged overt acts of cruelty; and
iii. a manifest factual admission by the complainant in her own written statement which effectively negates the essential ingredients of “entrustment” required for a charge of Criminal Breach of Trust.
2. Detailed Background Facts
2.1. The marital union between the Complainant, Sania Tasnim, and Meraj Ahmed (the brother of Petitioner no.1) was solemnized on 28.10.2022. According to the narrative set forth in the First Information Report (FIR), the relationship reportedly deteriorated within two months of the marriage, allegedly on account of unsatisfied dowry demands amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- intended for the husband’s business. This discord eventually led to the complainant departing from the matrimonial home on 07.04.2023.
2.2. A pivotal fact, which remains largely uncontroverted, is that the petitioners were never constituents of the immediate matrimonial household. Petitioner no.1 entered into wedlock with Petitioner no.2 on 28.12.2014—nearly eight years prior to the complainant’s marriage. Since their union, they have maintained an entirely independent and settled establishment in Tangra, Kolkata. This residence is not only geographically distinct from the matrimonial home in Beniapukur but is also functionally autonomous. Petitioner no.2 is a professional (Senior Associate at PwC), and the couple manages a separate nuclear household with their two minor children.
2.3. Following the complainant’s departure from the matrimonial home in April 2023, there ensued a significant and unexplained silence of six months. It was only on 09.10.2023 that the FIR was lodged at Beniapukur Police Station. In this belated narrative, the petitioners were impleaded alongside the principal accused through generalized, “omnibus” allegations of “instigation” and “frequent visits.” Crucially, the complaint is conspicuously void of any specific overt act, documented date, or time-stamped incident of the alleged torture attributed to these distantly residing relatives.
2.4. The investigative process yielded further material that contradicts the petitioners’ involvement. During the seizure conducted on 23.11.2023 at the matrimonial home on Tiljala Road, all recovered articles were found in the possession of the husband and his parents. No property or incriminating material was traced to the petitioners’ residence in Tangra. Most significantly, the complainant’s own written statement (Annexure “C”) categorically records that her gold ornaments (Stridhan) were kept in the exclusive custody of her father-in-law. This admission effectively negates the essential legal ingredients of “entrustment” or “misappro
