In the High Court at Calcutta

Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri

Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay

CRR 315 of 2025

Sri Bhanu Kumar Roy and Ors.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the petitioner : Ms. Sumon Sehanabis (Mandal)

: Mr. Salok Sah

: Ms. Anwesha Chakraborty

For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Bhaskar Roy Mahasaya

For the State : Mr. Nilay Chakraborty, Ld. APP

: Mr. Kallol Acharjee

Heard On : 19.12.2025 Judgment On : 13.01.2026

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1. The petitioners are the accused persons in Rajganj P.S. Case No. 536

of 2022 dated September 20, 2022, which has been filed by the present opposite party No. 2/de facto complainant against the said petitioners under Sections 498A, 323, 307 I.P.C. read with Section 3

and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The petitioners who are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and the husband of the de facto complainant respectively, has filed the instant case seeking quashing of the said proceeding, now pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jalpaiguri and numbered G.R. Case 5338 of 2022.

3. Ms. Sumon Sehanabis (Mandal), learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted the instant criminal case is an unfounded, frivolous one, filed against the petitioners by the de facto complainant only maliciously and to fulfill grudge against the petitioners.

4. She has elaborated that the entire allegation as made in the F.I.R. has no basis. It is submitted that, instead the de facto complainant has conducted herself in a manner not conducive to a peaceful matrimonial life.

5. Ms. Sehanabis for the petitioners has further submitted that, the de facto complainant has not been able to bring on record any cognizable case against the present petitioners worth taking cognizance by the Court of law. She has submitted further that, no evidence could be found even prima facie, against the present petitioners. She has further submitted that, a criminal proceeding as the present one, which is manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted maliciously with ulterior motive by the de facto complainant for wrecking vengeance on the petitioners due to private and personal grudge may not be considered as maintainable in the eye of law. In this regard, she has relied on the judgment of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Ch Bhajanlal and Others reported in 1992 Supplementary (1) SCC

335

6. Later on, she has also referred to various judgments of the Supreme Court as relied on by the in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 to submit that, in all the cases as mentioned above, the Supreme Court has discussed about the harassive effect of mis-utilization of the statutory protection in the hands of unscrupulous litigants, so far as penal provision under Section 498A, IPC is concerned and strongly deprecated such practice. She says that, a criminal proceeding over trivial familial issues have been criticized by the Court. The trial Courts have been directed to assess about the insurmountable harassment agony and pain to the complainant accused and his close relations before taking into cognizance the offence alleged. That, the Court says the allegations of complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

7. According to the petitioners, the general nature of the allegation against all of them would not be maintainable due to its very nature, which cannot be sustained without any specific data or document. In this regard, Ms. Sehanabis has mentioned the judgment of Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741, as referred to by the said Court later on in Kahkashan Kausar’s (Supra). She says, the omnibus allegations are to be held as not maintainable so far as the issue of quashing of the criminal proceeding is being considered by the Court.

8. For the reasons as above, Ms. Sehanabis, learned advocate has sought for an order directing quashing of the criminal proceeding in