Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Cal) 515

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.
Ratan Kumar Das @ Ratan Das & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Another – Opposite Parties
C.R.R. 2676 of 2021
Decided On : 09-07-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Monika Kalra, Adv., Mr. Shatadru Lahiri, Adv., Mr. Wasim Akram, Adv., Mr. Shantam Gulati, Adv., Mr. Saswata Tripathi, Adv., Ms. Prerana Vishwas, Adv.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Saibal Mondal, Adv., Ms. Sonali Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Sarthak Mondal, Adv., Mr. Imran Ali, Adv., Ms. Debjani Sahu, Adv.

Vague, general allegations in matrimonial disputes are insufficient for a criminal trial under IPC Section 498A, necessitating specific roles and details for due process.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A - Quashing of proceedings - Petitioners sought quashing of a proceeding under Section 498A IPC claiming no connection to the alleged offenses, asserting false allegations and lack of substantial evidence - The Court noted allegations were general and lacked specificity and attributed no individual role to the petitioners, constituting an abuse of process. (Paras 1-24)

(B) Criminal proceedings - Continuation against accused requires specific allegations - The Court reiterated that vague allegations in matrimonial disputes are not sufficient to warrant trial against family members. (Paras 11-20)

Table of Content
1. details of the petitioners and allegations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. petitioners argue lack of evidence. (Para 7 , 8)
3. opposite party supports allegations. (Para 9 , 10)
4. court analyzes allegations against petitioners. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. court emphasizes specific allegations needed. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
6. proceedings quashed due to lack of evidence. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
7. conclusion and orders of the court. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.

1. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are the brothers-in-law of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 and petitioner no. 2 is the wife of one Nukul Das, who is the brother-in-law of the complainant/opposite party no. 2. They have filed revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘CrPC’) for seeking quashing of the proceeding being G.R. Case No. 647/2020 arising out of Amdanga Police Station Case No. 160/2020 dated 01.04.2020 under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as the Charge Sheet being Charge Sheet No. 346/2020 dated 30.06.2020 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all orders passed therein, pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24 Parganas.

2. The factual matrix, giving rise to filing of present Criminal Revisional application, is that a complaint has been lodged by Opposite Party No.2, Tapati Das against her husband and in-laws alleging that she married Joydeb Das according to Hindu Rites and Customs. Since after marriage, she was subjected to torture both mentally and physically by her husband and in-laws. On 31.03.2020, at about 12.00 hrs., the accused persons abused her in filthy language and when she raised objection, they assaulted the complainant and drove her away from her matrimonial house.

3. On the basis of said complaint, an FIR was lodged being Amdanga Police Station Case No. 160/2020 dated 01.04.2020 under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against her husband and the present petitioners and investigation was initiated.

4. Upon completion of investigation, Charge Sheet being Charge Sheet No. 346/2020 dated 30.06.2020 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been submitted against husband and the present petitioners.

5. The specific case of the present petitioners is that they are innocent and are in no way connected with the alleged offence. They reside separately and do not share common mess with the complainant and her husband and were not involved in their day-to-day matrimonial life.

6. It is further contended that the complainant has also filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 being Case No. C/684/2020 before the Competent Court only against her husband. None of the present petitioner were arraigned as parties and no allegation made against them in the said proceedings. The petitioners alleged that the allegations levelled in the written complaint against them are out and out false. Hence, this application for quashing of the proceedings.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently argued and submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has falsely implicated the petitioners without disclosing the essential ingredients as required to establish an offence under Section 498A of the IPC and further the allegations levelled against the present petitioners are general, vague and failed to attribute any specific role of the petitioners with regard to the allegations of cruelty.

8. It was further submitted that during investigation, no substantial evidence was collected against the present petitioners to implicate them for an offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. In absence of such substantial evidence, the accusations of the de-facto complainant apparently found concocted, fabricated and with mala fide intention only to harass the petitioners though they are no way involve