1. Petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR and proceedings under Section 498A IPC for cruelty. (Para 05 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tri) 290
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
Biswajit Palit, J
Sri. Bapi Acharjee and Ors – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura and Anr – Respondent
Crl.Petn. 42 / 2025
Important Points
Criminal proceedings against husband's relatives in matrimonial cruelty cases should be quashed if based on general and omnibus allegations lacking specific material evidence, as criminal law should not be used as a tool for harassment or vendetta.
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR / Matrimonial Cruelty
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 / Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings - Allegations of cruelty by husband's family members - In cases of matrimonial own cruelty, allegations must be specific; general and omnibus allegations against relatives of the husband cannot form the basis for trial - Criminal law should not be used as a tool for harassment or vendetta, and complaints must be scrutinized closely to prevent misuse of law, particularly under Section 498-A of the IPC (Paras 3, 6).
(B) Framing of Charges - Scope of scrutiny - Where the investigation reveals no material evidence supporting the involvement of certain accused persons, the cognizance taken against them is bad in law and the order for framing of charges is perverse. (Para 6).
Facts of the case:
An FIR was filed by a wife alleging that her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law subjected her to cruelty and harassment for dowry. She alleged that her husband forced her to bring more money from her father and that the rest of the family members administered medicines to terminate her pregnancies. The investigation, however, found that while allegations against the husband were supported by statements, the allegations against the family members were general and not supported by any independent witnesses. The petitioners sought to quashing of the FIR and the subsequent orders for framing of charges against them.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the investigation materials, including statements of independent public witnesses, did not support the allegations against the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law. The materials available on record were only enough to proceed against the husband.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings against the husband's family members were based on sufficient material evidence to justify a trial, or whether they were based on omnibus allegations that constitute an abuse of the process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that in the absence of specific assertions and material evidence against the husband's relatives, the proceedings against them should be quashed to prevent them from undergoing the process of a trial based on frivolous claims. The court emphasized that the current legal framework prevents the misuse of laws intended to protect women from cruelty to settle personal scores.
Result: Petition partly allowed. Proceedings against petitioner No. 2, 3 & 4 quashed.
(B) Framing of Charges - Scope of scrutiny - Where the investigation reveals no material evidence supporting the involvement of certain accused persons, the cognizance taken against them is bad in law and the order for framing of charges is perverse. (Para 6).
Facts of the case:
An FIR was filed by a wife alleging that her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law subjected her to cruelty and harassment for dowry. She alleged that her husband forced her to bring more money from her father and that the rest of the family members administered medicines to terminate her pregnancies. The investigation, however, found that while allegations against the husband were supported by statements, the allegations against the family members were general and not supported by any independent witnesses. The petitioners sought to quashing of the FIR and the subsequent orders for framing of charges against them.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the investigation materials, including statements of independent public witnesses, did not support the allegations against the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law. The materials available on record were only enough to proceed against the husband.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings against the husband's family members were based on sufficient material evidence to justify a trial, or whether they were based on omnibus allegations that constitute an abuse of the process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that in the absence of specific assertions and material evidence against the husband's relatives, the proceedings against them should be quashed to prevent them from undergoing the process of a trial based on frivolous claims. The court emphasized that the current legal framework prevents the misuse of laws intended to protect women from cruelty to settle personal scores.
Result: Petition partly allowed. Proceedings against petitioner No. 2, 3 & 4 quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nepal Majumder
For the Respondents: Raju Datta, Ratan Datta
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nepal Majumder
For the Respondents: Raju Datta, Ratan Datta
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued no prima facie case; State and complainant argued sufficient material and need for trial. (Para 03 , 04 )
3. No specific role attributed to three accused; independent witnesses did not support cruelty allegations; cognizance bad in law. (Para 06 )
4. General and omnibus allegations without specific role cannot sustain proceedings; continuation amounts to abuse of process. (Para 06 , 07 )
5. Petition partly allowed: proceedings quashed against three family members; trial to proceed against husband only. (Para 07 )
6. When can FIR under Section 498A IPC be quashed against relatives of the husband?
When allegations are general and omnibus, lacking specific role attributed to each relative, and no independent corroboration exists. (Para 06 , 07 )
7. What is the standard for quashing criminal proceedings at the pre-trial stage under Section 482 CrPC?
If continuation of proceedings amounts to an abuse of process and no prima facie case is made out from the material on record. (Para 06 )
8. Is the statement of the victim and her family alone sufficient to frame charge against relatives in cruelty cases?
No, without specific allegations and independent witness support, such statements are insufficient and may be rejected as general and omnibus. (Para 06 )
Judgment & Order
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 528 of B.N.S.S. is filed for quashing of the FIR dated 28.08.2020 in connection with Ranir Bazar P.S. Case No.2020 RNB 047 which culminated into charge-sheet and registered as PRC (W.P.) No.249/2021 and also the subsequent order dated 24.03.2022 passed in the said case by Learned J.M., 1st Class and thereafter the order dated 21.02.2025 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Court No.5, West Tripura, Agartala in Revision Petition No.35 of 2022 rejecting the prayer for discharging of the accused persons, i.e. the petitioners herein, upholding the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by Learned J.M. 1st Class, Court No.6.
02. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Nepal Majumder appearing on behalf of the petitioner-accused persons and also heard Learned P.P., Mr. Raju Datta appearing on behalf of the State. The defacto-complainant although appeared and sought time to file objection, but nothing was submitted. However, Learned Counsel for the defacto-complainant, Mr. Ratan Datta appeared at the time of hearing.
03. Taking part in the hearing, Learned Counsel, Mr. N. Majumder submitted that the marriage occurred in between the respondent-victim and the principle-accused, i.e. the petitioner No.1 herein took place on 27.07.2009 according to Hindu Marriage Rites and Customs, but unfortunately, soon after the marriage, the respondent was reluctant to stay with the petitioner No.1 for which matrimonial discord took place amongst them and she used to leave her matrimonial home frequently which compelled the petitioner No.1 to file divorce petition at Agartala and thereafter, as per order of this Court the matter was remanded back to the Court at Belonia but ultimately, the petitioner-husband could not proceed further with the matter for which the same was disposed of without any merit. Immediately, thereafter, the respondent filed the present FIR on 28.08.2020, i.e. after a long period of their marriage involving the family members of the petitioner husband without any cause of action and on the basis of some ominous statements, the I.O. laid charge-sheet against all the petitioners and before the Learned Trial Court the petitioners filed petition for discharging them but the same was rejected and thereafter, a revision petition was preferred challenging that order which also has been dismissed. So, by this petition the petitioners also have challenged that order also.
It was further submitted that on bare perusal of the statements of witnesses recorded by I.O. during investigation, no material would be found against any of the petitioner-accused persons showing their involvement with the alleged offence and only the family members of the respondent gave some manufactured story but no independent witnesses supported the case of the victim and on the basis of those statements, there is no scope to frame charge against the petitioner-accused persons but the Learned Courts below without considering the same passed an order for framing of charge.
Learned Counsel in this regard, relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in P.V. Krishnabhat & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 484, wherein in para Nos.16, 17 and 18, Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:
“16. Criminal law should not be used as a tool for harassment or vendetta. The allegations in a criminal complaint must be scrutinized with care to ensure that they disclose a prima facie case before subjecting individuals to the rigors of a criminal trial. The cases involving allegations under Section 498-A of the IPC and the DP Act often require a careful and cautious approach to prevent misuse of the law. While the provisions are intended to protect women from cruelty and dowry harassment, they should not be used to settle personal scores or pursue ulterior motives.
17. In the present case, the allegations against the appellants were devoid of merit, manifestly frivolous
