##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

CRR 882 of 2022

Ashis Kumar Dutta & Anr.

-Vs-

State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Aritra Bhattacharyya

For the State : Mr. Bitasok Banerjee

Hearing concluded on : 06.02.2026

Judgment on : 20.02.2026

UDAY KUMAR, J.: –

1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023),

seeking to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the

proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1883 of 2017, presently pending before the

Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah. The said proceedings

originated from Bantra P.S. Case No. 99/2017 dated 30.03.2017 under

Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and

4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The fine balance between protecting a woman’s

right to prosecute domestic cruelty and shielding the husband’s extended

family from the rigors of a malicious or over-inclusive prosecution are involved.

The Petitioners seek the exercise of this Court's inherent power to prevent

2

what they characterize as an abuse of the criminal machinery in a

matrimonial dispute.

2. The factual matrix, as unfolded during the extensive hearing, reveals a marital

union between the Petitioner No. 1(Ashis Kumar Dutta, a practicing Advocate)

and the Opposite Party No. 2 (Kasturi Dutta) that commenced on November

28, 2005. The marriage remained functionally intact for approximately twelve

years, during which the parties resided together and twin daughters were born

in 2012.

3. The peace of this domesticity, however, allegedly shattered on March 30, 2017,

the day the wife left the matrimonial home. While the wife alleges a forced

ouster, the husband contends the departure was a voluntary withdrawal from

his society, facilitated by her father, who purportedly signed a "No-Complaint"

declaration on the self-same date.

4. The complainant (wife) alleges that shortly after marriage, she became the

target of sustained physical and mental cruelty fuelled by insatiable dowry

demands. The narrative reaches its crescendo on 30.03.2017, when she claims

she was physically assaulted and ousted from her matrimonial home "in a

single cloth" after her father failed to provide Rs. 1,00,000 for a four-wheeler.

She further alleged a history of drunken abuse by Petitioner No. 2 (Brother-in-

law) and the misappropriation of her Stridhan.

5. Conversely, the Petitioners present a sharply divergent account. Petitioner No.

1, a practicing advocate of this Court, contends that the marriage was plagued

by the wife's alleged extramarital involvement. He places heavy reliance on a

3

written declaration signed by the wife's father on the very day of the

separation, asserting that the departure was voluntary and devoid of

grievances.

6. He claims the wife left voluntarily with her father and brother-in-law.

Crucially, he relies on a "Written Declaration" signed by the wife's father on

that date, stating he had no grievances against the in-laws. The husband

immediately filed for Restitution of Conjugal Rights (Matrimonial Suit No.

649/2018) and lodged a General Diary (GDE No. 1839) reporting her

departure.

7. Following investigation, the police submitted a Charge Sheet (No. 76/2017)

against the husband and brother-in-law, leading to the present Revisional

Application.

8. Mr. Aritra Bhattacharyya, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners argued with

much vehemence that the criminal machinery has been weaponized as a

"counter-blast" to the husband’s prior filing of a Matrimonial Suit for

Restitution of Conjugal Rights. The FIR of wife is a "counter-blast" to the

husband’s matrimonial suit. He relied extensively on the ratio in State of

Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), submitting that the allegations are so "absurd

and inherently improbable" that no prudent person could reach a conclusion

that there is sufficient ground for proceeding.

9. They em