SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 732

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.
Harendra Nath Sarkar & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal & anr. – Respondents
CRR 2976 of 2018
Decided On : 25-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Samanta, Mr. Surajit Maity, Mr. Arun Kumar Das
For the Respondent: Mr. Satadru lahiri, Mr. Safdar Azam, Mr. D.Ray, Mr. Bidyut Kumar Roy, Ms. Faria Hossain

Vague allegations in a domestic abuse case do not meet the legal threshold for prosecuting relatives under IPC Section 498A, requiring specific instances of cruelty.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A, 306, 341, 323, 447, 354 - Quashing of proceedings - Allegations of physical and mental cruelty not substantiated with specific details; FIR lacks precise allegations - Charge sheet submitted under Section 498A is based on vague and general assertions rendering it a misuse of legal process - No prima facie case established against petitioners; proceeding quashed. (Paras 1, 20, 30)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners are relatives of complainant accused of physically and mentally torturing her, instigating her husband's suicide, and driving her from the matrimonial home. The marriage lasted 19 years with two children. The husband's suicide occurred shortly after multiple FIRs were filed. (Paras 1, 16, 19)

Findings of Court:
FIR did not provide specific instances of cruelty, and allegations lacked documentary support. The court emphasized the need for precise claims to avoid misuse of Section 498A IPC. (Paras 24, 30)

Issues: Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a prima facie case under Section 498A IPC? Is the proceeding an abuse of the legal process due to vagueness in the complaint? (Paras 1, 22)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that vague allegations without specific details do not suffice to implicate accused under Section 498A IPC; established criteria for cruelty must be present. (Paras 20, 26, 30)

Result: Proceeding quashed.

Table of Content
1. introduction of allegations against petitioners (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments of petitioners regarding fault and counterclaims (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. opposing counsel's argument stressing validity of fir (Para 8 , 10 , 14)
4. discussion on charge sheet's validity and judicial independence (Para 9 , 11 , 12)
5. analysis of the clarity and sufficiency of allegations (Para 15 , 19 , 20 , 21)
6. clarification of legal definition of cruelty (Para 22 , 24)
7. court's critique of allegations substantiation (Para 23 , 25 , 27)
8. requirement of evidentiary backing for claims made in fir (Para 28 , 29)
9. final ruling to quash the proceedings against petitioners (Para 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. Petitioners are the brothers in law and sister in law of the defacto complainant/opposite party no.2, who prayed for quashing of proceeding being GR case no. 2204 of 2017 arising out of Bagda Police Station case no.409/2017 under section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code presently pending before learned ACJM, Bongaon, North 24 Parganas.

2. The Opposite party no.2/victim filed a petition of complaint before the court below under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioners and after receiving the said complaint learned Court below directed the police to start investigation and thereafter police submitted charge sheet against six accused persons under section 498A/34 of IPC and during pendency of the proceeding father in law and one brother in law died and accordingly the name of the petitioner no.1 & 3 were expunged from the cause title of the instant application.

3. The allegation levelled in the petition of complaint which was subsequently treated as FIR interalia states that the marriage of the complainant was solemnised with one Nilratan Sarkar about 19 years back and due to said wedlock two male children were born. While the husband is stated to have treated the complainant with care and affection during his lifetime but it is alleged that the other family members/petitioners subjected her to physical and mental cruelty. The petitioners went to the extent of instigating her to commit suicide. On 26.04.2017 while her husband was engaged in cultivation work in the field, the accused persons assaulted and drove her from the matrimonial house along with her minor younger child and thereafter the accused persons/petitioners forced her husband to start a case against her and as a result, her husband lodged a case being Bagda Police Station case no. 313/2017 under section 365/366/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant also stated in her complaint that on 05.05.2017, her husband proposed her that they would reside separately. The complainant came back to her matrimonial home and stated everything to the accused persons but the accused persons/petitioners abated her husband to commit suicide and as a result her husband committed suicide on 06.05.2017

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding Mr. Samanta learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the complainant left her matrimonial house with the child without informing her husband and for which her husband lodged aforesaid complaint before the police station being Bagda police case no. 313/2017 Under section 365/366/498/34 IPC . However, police submitted final report in the said case stating ‘mistake of fact’. Thereafter the husband of the defacto complainant committed suicide on 06.05.2017 and one of the brother of the deceased after knowing the contents of the suicide note lodged complaint against the present complainant and six others being Bagda Police station case no. 333/2017 dated 07.05.2017 under section 306 . The instant complaint is the counterblast of the said complaint lodged on behalf of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that during 18/19 years of marriage , the complainant/wife never made any allegation against the present petitioner who infact resided separately. Accordingly i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top