IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta

C.R.R. No. 1707 of 2025

Maya Saha @ Maya Rani Saha & Ors.

Versus

The State of West Bengal & Another

WITH

CRR 1448 of 2020

Rita Saha & Ors.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sudipto Maitra, Ld. Sr. Adv.

Mr. Vijay Verma, Adv.

Mr. Dwaipayan Biswas, Adv.

Mr. Avik Bhattacharya, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Sankalpa Bhattacharjee, Adv.

Heard on : 25.08.2026

Judgment on : 12.10.2026

Uploaded on : 12.10.2026

2

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.:-

1. The petitioners/accused persons filed the instant Revisional

application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (In Short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking quashing of the proceeding and

the impugned Charge Sheet No. 457/17 dated 26.05.2017

submitted for commission of offence punishable under Sections

417/494/498A/376/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in

connection with G.R. Case No. 213 of 2015 arising out of Raigunj

Police Station Case No. 134 of 2015 dated 08.02.2015 pending

before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigunj, Uttar

Dinajpur.

2. The brief facts of the case, relevant for the purpose of disposal of

this case, are that the petitioners along with others were arraigned

as accused persons in connection with Raigunj Police Station Case

No. 134 of 2015 dated 08.02.2015 for alleged commission of

offence punishable under Sections 417/494/498A/376/406/120B

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of a purported written

complaint lodged by opposite party no.2/victim lady.

3. According to the written complaint, the opposite party no. 2

alleged, inter alia, that the principal accused, Mr Subrata Saha @

Goutam Saha, while attending a training at the Fire Brigade in

3

Raigunj, became acquainted with the family of the opposite party

no. 2. He falsely claimed to be unmarried and, on the pretext of

marriage, developed physical relations with her. Ultimately, their

marriage was arranged on 24

th

November, 2014. However, after

marriage, the accused persons became furious and started

torturing her in many ways.

4. The complainant later came to know from a family member of the

accused that he was already married and had two children. When

she asked her husband about such facts, he tried to kill her and

threatened her not to open her mouth. She returned to her

parental home on 31.01.2015 and disclosed the fact to her

parents. Subsequently, she lodged a written complaint, which

resulted in registration of FIR being Raigunj Police Station Case

No. 134 of 2015 dated 08.02.2015 under Sections

417/494/498A/376/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and

investigation was initiated against Subrata Saha and other

accused persons.

5. After culmination of investigation, a Charge Sheet No. 457/17

dated 26.05.2017 under Sections 417/494/498A/376/406/120B

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act has been submitted against the petitioners

herein and others.

4

6. The principal accused, who happened to be the husband of the

complainant, expired; as such, his case has resulted in closure, as

it has abated.

7. There is no whisper of involvement of the present petitioners in

connection with any of the allegations alleged to have been

committed by the present petitioners in the said complaint or even

charge sheet.

8. The petitioners have been falsely entangled as accused persons in

the instant proceedings with some ulterior motive by fabricating

facts and making frivolous and baseless allegations, and therefore

seek quashing of the proceedings against them to secure the ends

of justice and also to prevent abuse of process of law.

9. Mr. Maitra, learned senior counsel appearing along with other

counsel for the petitioners, vehemently argued and submitted that

the present petitioner nos.1, 2, and 3 are sisters and Petitioner

no.4 is the brother-in-law of the deceased husband. All are

innocent and in no way connected with the allegations levelled

against them by the de facto complainant. The offences punishable

under Sections 417/494/376/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are

not attracted against the present petitioners because no specific

allegations are attributed specifically to any of the present

petitioners.

5

10. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the FIR was lodged

on 8

th February, 2015 without explaining the delay, despite the

marriage having taken place on 24

th November, 2014, and she left

her matrimonial home on 31

st

January, 2015 and went to her

parental house for her own. The present petitioners never

interfered with their day-to-day conjugal life, nor did they play any

role in their marriage.

11. It was further submitted that though the allegations made in the

written complaint indicate that the petitioners herein had

assaulted the de facto complainant during her stay at the

matrimonial home, no particulars about the date, time and

manner of assault were specified in the complaint itself. Hence, the

proceedings against the petitioners should not be allowed to

continue; otherwise, it would be a sheer abuse of the process of

law, and for securing the ends of justice, the petitioners’ case may

be quashed; otherwise, they would suffer irreparable loss and

injury due to such illegal and frivolous proceedings.

12. Additionally, it was submitted that the Learned Magistrate took

cognizance mechanically and whimsically against the petitioners

without going through the materials available in the charge sheet.

The charge sheet contained only general and vague allegations and

was filed without proper investigation and purportedly filed against

the Petitioners.

6

13. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments in

support of his arguments as under: -

i. Vinod Kumar, IAS v. Union of India

1

;

ii. Dr. Hiralal Konar and Anr. v. State of West Bengal

2;

iii. Uma Maheshwari and Anr. v. The State and Anr.

3

.

14. Despite good service, none appeared on behalf of the opposite

party no. 2, nor has any accommodation been sought.

15. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State produced the

case diary and further vehemently opposed the prayer of the

petitioner. He further submitted that previously, the petitioners

had filed another Revisional application being CRR 1448 of 2020

challenging the proceedings as well as the order issuing warrant,

proclamation and attachment, but after hearing the parties and

perusal of the materials available on the record, the co-ordinate

bench of this Hon’ble High Court set aside the order of

proclamation and attachment as it was issued by the Trial Court

without maintaining correct procedure prior to issue to the same.

However, the Revisional application was disposed of by the same

order, observing therein that the court is of the opinion that the

case is not a fit case for interference for termination of the

proceedings. Therefore, this second Revisional application, even

1

2021 (3) AICLR 777 (SC)

2

2025 (4) AICLR 170 (Cal.)

3

2026 (2) AICLR 121 (SC)

7

filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of the

proceedings, is not at all maintainable in law and the same is

liable to be dismissed.

16. The learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision in the case

of M.C. Ravikumar Vs. D.S. Velurugan,

4

particularly paragraph

nos.15 and 16, as well as Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of Uttar

Pradesh

5

in support of his contention that the second Revisional

application cannot be allowed; otherwise, it would override a

specific bar laid down by other provisions of Cr.P.C. The High

Court is not empowered to review its own decision or co-ordinate

bench. The earlier Revisional application was disposed of on its

own merits, and furthermore, there is no change in circumstances

in the present case.

17. Learned counsel further submitted, in the alternative, that during

investigation, sufficient materials were collected against them from

the available witnesses. The statement recorded under Section 161

of the Cr.P.C. prima facie indicates the involvement of the

petitioners in the alleged offence although some of the sections are

not applicable against them.

18. It was further submitted that the petitioners had played a vital role

in arranging the marriage of her brother, though they were well-

known that he had earlier married and had two children. By

4

2025 INSC 888

5

SLP (Crl.) No. 7976 of 2023

8

suppressing the fact, they organised their marriage. The

Investigating Officer found a prima facie case establishing charges

under Sections 417/498A/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and

accordingly a charge sheet has been submitted against the present

petitioners and other accused persons. Therefore, this Criminal

Revisional application is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

19. In reply, Mr. Maitra strongly objected to the submission made by

the Learned Counsel regarding the contention of non-

maintainability of the case. He contended that the earlier

application was filed originally challenging the order of

proclamation and attachment, and after hearing, the Hon’ble

Court set aside the order of proclamation and attachment as it was

issued against the petitioners without following the real provision

as mentioned in Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. The Co-ordinate Bench,

at that point of time, without proper assessment and

consideration, in general terms held that the case is not a fit case

for interference for termination of the proceedings. In this context

of maintainability, Ld. Counsel has relied upon the decision in the

case of Anil Khadkiwala v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)

and Anr.

6

particularly paragraph nos. 7, 8, and 9 thereof.

6

JT 2019 (8) SC 16

9

20. Learned Sr. Counsel relied upon a judgment passed by this court

in CRR No. 3186 of 2022 filed by one of the other sisters of the

deceased husband and, after hearing the parties and thorough

perusal of the case diary and materials therein, quashed the

proceeding as far as another sister, namely Basanti Saha, noting

therein that no specific role was attributed against the sister of the

deceased husband. The allegations are general, omnibus, vague as

well as bereft of details about the date, time and manner of alleged

torture or inducement; as a result, it is impossible to ascertain the

role of each accused person in the commission of the offences as

alleged to prove their guilt and punish.

21. It was further submitted that second and subsequent application

under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is indeed maintainable as it

confers a wide inherent power to the High Court to do justice,

when it appears the earlier order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench

was unreasoned and without properly consideration of actual

facts. The second application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can

be filed, and there is no bar, in case the facts so justify.

22. At present, the moot question that arises before this court is

whether this second Revisional application filed under Section 482

of the Cr.P.C. can be entertained, when co-ordinate of this court

rejected prayer of the petitioners for quashing of the proceeding

being G.R. Case No.213 of 2015 after filing charge sheet under

10

Section 417/494/498A/376/120B/406 in a previous application

filed the same petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure,1973 on 10.05.2022?

23. Having heard the arguments and submissions made by the

respective parties as well as coming to the facts of the present

case, this court would like to look the provision of Sections 482

and 362 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of fair and proper disposal

of this case.

“482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.— Nothing in this

Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the

High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to

any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any

Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

362. Court not to alter judgment.— Save as otherwise provided

by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court,

when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case,

shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or

arithmetical error.”

24. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. saves the inherent powers of the High

Court to give effect to any order under the Code, in order to

prevent abuse of the process of any court, and to secure the ends

of justice. It does not confer a new jurisdiction. It preserves one

that exists, and it cannot be invoked in a manner that conflicts

with an express bar elsewhere in the Code or defeats the finality

that the Code attaches to judicial orders.

11

25. Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. provides that, save as otherwise

provided by the Code or any other law for the time being in force,

no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing

of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical

or arithmetical error. The provision embodies the settled principle

that a Court becomes functus officio once it has disposed of a

matter, and it applies to the High Court exercising criminal

Revisional or inherent jurisdiction.

26. The learned counsel for the State relied on M.C. Ravikumar v.

D.S. Velmurugan (Supra), wherein the Court held that even

though there is no sweeping rule that a second petition is barred,

the maintainability of the same depends on the facts of each case,

with the onus to show a change in circumstances on the person

filing the subsequent petition.

27. The State also relied on Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of Uttar

Pradesh (Supra), wherein it was held that allowing successive

petitions would enable an ingenious accused to stall proceedings

by filing one petition after another, irrespective of when the cause

arose.

28. The petitioners relied on Anil Khadkiwala v. State (Supra) ,

which was a complaint case, in which the Supreme Court held

that the second application could not be held non-maintainable

merely because of the dismissal of the earlier one. Vinod Kumar

12

(Supra) relied upon by the Petitioner, holds a similar view. The

decision therefore does not support the Petitioner, given that it was

clearly established in these cases that maintainability would be

considered only on production of fresh material that was not

produced before the Court earlier.

29. On the whole, the authorities cited by both sides indicate that a

successive application may be entertained only where the earlier

application was not adjudicated on merits, such as where it was

withdrawn, dismissed as not pressed, or disposed of on a limited

ground. It may also be entertained where a subsequent change in

circumstances, whether factual or legal, gives rise to a fresh cause

of action not available earlier. It is not entertained merely because

the petitioner regards the earlier decision as erroneous or wishes

to urge afresh what was or could have been urged before.

30. It is not disputed that the earlier application was filed by the same

petitioners, that it challenged the same proceeding, G.R. Case No.

213 of 2015, and that it was heard in the presence of the parties

on perusal of the materials on record in the charge sheet as

available in the case diary. The coordinate Bench set aside the

order of proclamation and attachment because the procedure

prescribed under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. had not been followed.

It then recorded its opinion that the case was not a fit one for

interference for termination of the proceeding. That was a

13

considered refusal of the prayer for quashing on merits, not a

disposal without adjudication, and the earlier application was not

withdrawn or dismissed as not pressed.

31. This Court shall next consider whether any change in

circumstances has been shown. The death of the principal accused

abates the proceeding against him alone. It does not alter the case

against the present petitioners, who were arraigned in their own

right and whose position was before the coordinate Bench, when it

passed its order.

32. Reliance was also placed on the order of this Court in CRR No.

3186 of 2022, by which, proceeding against a co-accused, Basanti

Saha, was quashed, which was passed on its own facts in an

application by a different petitioner. It is not a change of law, and

it is not a change in the petitioners' own circumstances. To accept

it as a ground for re-opening the earlier decision would require this

Court to compare the cases of the respective accused persons and

re-assess the materials against them, which is the very exercise

the earlier order has already foreclosed for these petitioners.

33. The grounds urged on merits are that the allegations are omnibus

and vague, that the delay in lodging the FIR is unexplained, and

that cognizance was taken mechanically. However, since the

application fails at the threshold, this Court expresses no opinion

14

on any of them, nor on the contentions of the State concerning the

materials in the case diary.

34. In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that the instant

application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of

the same proceeding that was the subject of the earlier application

between the same parties, which was heard and refused on

consideration of the materials on record, is indeed not

maintainable. No new ground has been shown on which the

coordinate Bench's order may be re-opened. Re-opening of

previous judgment delivered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Hon’ble High Court on merits upon perusal of case diary is strictly

prohibited by specific provision under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C.,

when statute specifically bars to review the judgment even in

exercising inherent jurisdiction of High Court forbid to interfere

with the same.

35. Accordingly, CRR 1707 of 2025 is, thus, dismissed. Connected

applications, if any, are also, thus, disposed of.

36. Insofar as CRR 1448 of 2020 is concerned, it was already disposed

of on 10

th

May, 2022 by this Court; therefore, there is no need to

pass any order.

37. Consequently, the proceedings and the impugned Charge Sheet

No. 457/17 dated 26.05.2017 for alleged commission of offence

punishable under Sections 417/494/498A/376/406/120B of the

15

Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act in connection with G.R. Case No. 213 of 2015

arising out of Raigunj Police Station Case No. 134 of 2015 dated

08.02.2015 pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Raigunj, Uttar Dinajpur will continue insofar as the petitioners are

concerned.

38. In view of submissions made by the Ld. Senior Counsel, Mr.

Maitra, the Petitioners would be at liberty to file an application for

discharge from the proceedings pending before the Ld. Trial Court,

if so advised, and the same may be disposed of by the Trial Court

without being influenced by any of the observations made by this

Court in accordance with law and the same may be disposed of as

expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary

adjournment to the parties.

39. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Learned Court below for

information.

40. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

41. Case Diary, if any, be returned to the learned counsel for the

State.

42. Parties shall act on the server copies of this Judgment uploaded

on the official website of this Court.

16

43. Urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, is

to be given as expeditiously to the parties on compliance of all

legal formalities.

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)

P. Adak (P.A.)