IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDITION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR CRR 175 of 2025 Smt. Dipti Dey @ Dipti Dey Bhattacharya & Anr.

-Vs.-

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Avimannu Das Mr. Indranuj Dutt For the State : Mr. Saikat Chatterjee Mr. Chattu Roy Hearing concluded on : 31.07.2025 Judgment on : 02.08.2025 Uday Kumar, J.:-

1. This revisional application, filed by the petitioners, the ex-sister-in-law and her husband of the de-facto complainant/ Opposite Party No. 2, Smt. Chandana Paul (Dey), under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeks the quashing of the impugned criminal proceeding, G.R. Case No. 5281 of 2015, arising from Bhaktinagar Police Station Case No. 1821 of 2015, dated December 30, 2015, under Sections 498A and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The primary contention for quashing is that the marital relationship, which formed the very basis of the criminal complaint lodged by Opposite Party No. 2, has since been dissolved by a decree of divorce granted on mutual consent, thereby rendering the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners an abuse of the process of law.

2. The marital relationship that forms the backdrop of this dispute was solemnized on April 22, 2015, between Biplab Dey, the elder brother of Petitioner No. 1, and the Opposite Party No. 2. The petitioners contend that the couple initially resided at their property. It is significant to note that on December 28, 2015, Petitioner No. 1 had lodged a written complaint against Opposite Party No. 2.

3. Two days later, on December 30, 2015, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed her complaint against the present petitioners. This complaint led to the registration of Bhaktinagar P.S. Case No. 1821 of 2015, alleging physical and mental torture, spreading of negative rumours, and preventing her husband from interacting with her, purportedly occurring after approximately three months of marriage. A charge-sheet (No. 460/16) was subsequently filed on March 31, 2016, and cognizance of the alleged offences was taken by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, on July 11, 2016. The petitioners secured anticipatory bail in connection with this case.

4. A crucial development occurred on May 29, 2019, when Biplab Dey and the Opposite Party No. 2 jointly filed an application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for divorce by mutual consent (Matrimonial Suit No. 174(5) of 2019). This joint application contained explicit undertakings in Paragraphs 9 and 10, stating unequivocally that the parties "shall not invoke any cases/suit against each other and shall not lodge/Invoke any claim or complaint against each other or their respective family members," and that they "will have no claim and counter claim against each other or against the family members of each other." The Opposite Party No. 2 further affirmed this position in her examination-in-chief on January 4, 2020. Consequently, a decree of divorce by mutual consent was granted on January 4, 2020.

5. Mr. Avimannu Das, Learned Advocate for the petitioners, primarily contended that the criminal proceeding has become infructuous following the dissolution of the marital tie-on mutual consent. He emphasized the clear undertakings given by the Opposite Party No. 2 in joint application for divorce under Section 13B of the HMA, 1955 and her deposition, explicitly agreeing not to pursue claims against the ex- husband or his family members, which undeniably includes the petitioners.

6. Mr. Das submitted that continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, who are the ex-sister-in-law and her husband, despite this comprehensive settlement and the express undertaking, would amount to a patent abuse of the process of the Court. He further submitted that the FIR was lodged as a counterblast to Petitioner No. 1's prior complaint, without a preliminary inquiry, and s