Page 1 of 19

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:-

HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.

CRR 1260 OF 2023

RIA DAS

VS.

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mit Guha Roy, Adv.

Mr. Sayan Sarkar, Adv.

Ms. Sneha Saha, Adv.

For the Opposite : Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv.

Party Mr. Shounak Mondal, Adv.

Last heard on : 31.03.2026

Judgement on : 09.06.2026

Uploaded on : 09.06.2026

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.: -

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

1973 filed by the petitioner, the wife of the Opposite Party no. 2 for quashing of

criminal proceeding instituted under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 which is presently pending before the Learned Judicial

Magistrate, 2

nd

Court at Alipore.

Page 2 of 19

Brief Fact of the Case

2. The fact of the case in brief is that on 17

th

of January, 2020 the petitioner got

married with the Opposite Party no. 2 under Hindu Rites and Customs.

The petitioner lodged one complaint against the opposite party no. 2 /husband

on demand of dowry and physical and mental torture on her by the husband

and his mother. That apart a ll the stridhan articles ornaments were

entrusted upon the Opposite Party no. 2 and mother-in-law of the petitioner as

per demand of them with a promise that those will be returned as and when

will be asked for. It was further alleged that since marriage the Opposite Party

no. 2 and his family members caused immense mental and physical torture

upon the petitioner and during Covid -19 at the time of lock down and

quarantine the situation became unbearable. The physical and mental torture

perpetrated upon the Opposite Party no. 2 increased drastically on and from

23.03.2020 and she was further assaulted under direct instigation of the

mother-in-law of the petitioner. She was even not allowed to visit a doctor and

lastly ousted from her matrimonial home on 25.03.2020 by the Opposite Party

no. 2. After that the petitioner lodged the complaint after normalcy returned

from Covid situation and hence there was a delay in lodging the complaint on

21.01.2021 before the Officer-in-charge of Haridevpur Police Station through

speed post which was received on 25.01.2021 which was registered against the

Opposite Party no. 2 and the mother-in-law under Section 498A/406/34 of the

Indian Penal Code along with Section 3 &4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The

Learned Magistrate took cognizance and the matter is pending before the

Learned Judicial Magistrate, 5

th

Court at Alipore.

Page 3 of 19

3. The petitioner also filed an application under Section 12 of PWDV Act and by

an order dated 19.07.22 a Protection Order was granted in favour of the

petitioner whereby an order of restrain has been passed against the Opposite

Party no. 2 and his mother from committing any acts which falls into the

category of domestic violence upon the petitioner. Further direction was given

to the Officer-in-charge of the concerned police station for rendering necessary

legal assistance and protection to the petitioner from all sorts of domestic

violence. A matrimonial suit has also been filed against the Opposite Party no.

2 by the Petitioner which is pending before the Learned District Judge at

Alipore and subsequently transferred to the Learned 13

th

Court, Alipore being

matrimonial suit no. 283 of 2021. The Opposite Party no. 2 appeared in the

said suit and is contesting the same by filing written statement. A Misc. case

under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has also been filed by the

petitioner in the said matrimonial suit seeking maintenance pendente lite from

the Opposite Party no. 2 and the matters are pending for hearing and disposal.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that despite taking all effort the stridhan

articles were not returned to her, hence she had to lodge a further complaint

under Section 200 of Cr.P.C before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate at Alipore on 22.01.2021 and proceeding has been transferred

before the judicial Magistrate, 6

th

Court at Alipore for trial and on the basis of

an application filed under Section 93 and 94 of Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 the Learned Magistrate passed an order dated 03.12.21 directing the

officer-in-charge of Haridevpur Police Station to conduct a search and seizure

at the matrimonial home of the petitioner for recovery of the listed stridhan

articles. A search was conducted on 3.12.21 and the Police Officer seized

Page 4 of 19

substantial portion of the stridhan articles save and except ing the gold

jewellery and costly articles.

5. She further preferred an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. presently

pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate; 2

nd

Court at Alipore whereby a

direction has been passed against the present Opposite Party no. 2 to pay an

amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the Opposite Party no. 2 has an interim

maintenance allowance.

6. The Opposite Party no. 2 has also filed a matrimonial suit before the Learned

District Judge at Alipore which has been transferred to the Learned Session

Judge at Alipore for trial. During the course of pendency of the above

matrimonial proceeding and counter proceedings between the parties the

Opposite Party no. 2 maliciously and only to harass the petitioner filed another

complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure dated 21.05.22

before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore which was

subsequently made over before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2

nd

Court at

Alipore. On 20.07.22 the Learned Judicial Magistrate 2

nd

Court at Alipore after

examining the complainant/ opposite Party no. 2 herein under Section 200 of

Cr.P.C. found that a case under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been

made out against the petitioner and accordingly a process has been issued

against the petitioner under Section 204 of Cr.P.C, 1973. Accordingly summon

was served upon the petitioner who appeared before the Magistrate but before

she could present herself before the concerned Court an warrant of arrest has

been issued against the petitioner vide an order dated 26.9.22. After that she

filed an Application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. before the Learned Judicial

Page 5 of 19

Magistrate, 2

nd

Court at Alipore and therefore has challenged entire proceeding

and prayed for quashing of the entire proceeding.

Submission made on behalf of the petitioner

7. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner has relied upon the decision

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation

1

whereby order of summoning the appellants were set aside and

it was observed that a wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of

process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged

into court nearly because of complaint has been filed. It is argued that the

learned Magistrate failed to consider that several litigations are pending

between the parties and mostly against the opposite party no. 2 who having no

other option filed the false case against the petitioner. Accordingly, prayed for

setting aside the order impugned. More so there are absolutely no ingredients

to attract section 420 IPC and the complainant has lodged the complaint in

order to wreak vengeance against the petitioner and is a counter blast to the

steps taken against him by the petitioner, therefore the proceeding ought to

have been quashed.

Submissions made on behalf of the opposite party no.2

8. Per contra the submissions advanced on behalf of the Learned Senior

Advocate representing the Opposite Party no. 2 that around 2014 the Opposite

Party became acquainted with the petitioner through Facebook and over the

time their interaction developed into a close intimate relationship marked by

1

(2015) 4 SCC 609

Page 6 of 19

frequent communication over social media platform but the petitioner from the

very inception of the relationship harboured a dishonest intention to exploit

the Opposite Party no. 2. In the year 2018, a proposal to marriage was given to

the Opposite Party no. 2 which he accepted and they got married on January

17, 2020 but during this entire period the petitioner throughout exert pressure

upon the complainant to provide her money in the nature of loan in order to

meet expenses relating to the proposed marriage and even after marriage she

did not change and continued with demand of further sum s and in that

manner over a period of time he procured a total sum of Rs. 9, 91,501 from the

Opposite Party no. 2/ complainant. After that when he insisted to repay the

same found the reluctant attitude of the petitioner to return the money and

then he stopped providing further financial assistance and this changed the

behaviour of the petitioner who became hostile and rude towards him and his

family members. Ultimately she left the matrimonial home on false pre text

severed co-habitation. Lastly she threatened him to implicate him in false

criminal case and demonstrated that she never intended to enter into a

genuine marital relationship.

9. The Learned Senior Counsel further contended that it is a settled

proposition of law inherent jurisdiction this Court under Section 482 if Cr.P.C.

is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare

cases only where inter alia the complaint on the face of it does not disclose

any offence. In the present case the complaint as a whole spotlessly discloses

that essential ingredient of the offence of cheating punishable under Section

420 of the Indian Penal Code are absolutely missing. The allegation depict a

Page 7 of 19

systematic course of conduct on the part of the petitioner accused and it is

trite law that the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegation cannot be

adjudicated upon and this court ought not to conduct a meticulous

examination of evidence or embark upon a mini trial in the exercise of a

inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Of the Cr.P.C. The Learned Advocate

put reliance in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana

and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors.

2

Para 102 / 103. Further relied upon the

decision reported in CRR 719 of 2023 Prem Kumar Agarwal vs. State of

West Bengal and Anr .,Criminal petition no. 9147 of 2022 Andhra

Pradesh High Court V. Sirisha vullendu Sirish vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh and in Criminal Application no. 4038 of 2022 Bombay High

Court at Aurangabad , Gajanan vs. State of Maharashtra on the point

that matrimonial relationship does not negate the evidence of cheating under

Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. It is also argued that counter blast is no

ground for quashing and on this point relied upon the decision reported in

Ram kishan vs. State of Rajasthan and others

3

. Furthermore the delay in

filing the complaint does not in any manner vitiates the proceeding or furnish

a valid ground for quashing the same and in this matter relied upon the

decision of Skoda Auto VolksWagen (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh and Others

4

, para 18.

10. It is further submitted that there was no suppression whatsoever on the

part of the Opposite Party no. 2 /complainant in the complaint petition itself

as it is very clear and unambiguous to record that complainant demanded

2

1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

3

(2021) 4 SCC 778

4

(2021) 5 SCC 795

Page 8 of 19

more money even after refusing to pay further she lodged false complaint

against the complainant. The said averment evidently discloses the existence

of prior proceeding initiated by the petitioner/ accused and therefore the

allegation of suppression is ex facie untenable. More so, even if there is any

omission to disclose prior proceeding the same would not, in law constitute a

valid ground or quashing of a criminal complaint.

11. The Learned Advocate further relied upon the decision reported in CBI vs.

Aryan Singh and Ors

5

. and would submit that where the specific allegation

of monetary transaction with details are furnished which prima facie

establishes the allegation the liberty should be given to raise the same before

trial court. It is the further contention of the learned advocate that in the

present case the act of the petitioner /accused constitutes a clear case of

cheating wherein the Opposite Party no. 2 dishonestly induced to part with

money on the basis of false representation and assurances made from the very

inception. Lastly, it is submitted that no detailed reason is required on a

summoning order and in this regard relied upon the decision of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Bhushan Kumar & Another vs. State (NCT) and

Another

6

, UP Pollution Control Board vs. Mohan Me akins Limited and

Others

7

, Kanti Bhadra Shah & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal

8

.

5

(2023) 18 SCC 399

6

(2012) 5 SCC 424

7

(2000) 3 SCC 745

8

(2000) 1 SCC 722

Page 9 of 19

Analysis

12. Heard the submissions of both the Learned Advocate s. On perusal of the

materials on record prima facie a chequered history of pending litigations

between the parties can be found over their matrimonial discord. The instant

complaint is lodged by the husband, Opposite Party no. 2 which apparently

depicts the petitioner as an accused of cheating of a hefty amount which was

given to the petitioner gradually and year after year since 2018. The complaint

discloses about the prior relationship between the parties before marriage which

subsequently culminated into a marriage in the year 2020. But unfortunately the

relationship turned sour and the marital discord cropped up resulting filing of

number of cases with allegation and counter allegations by the parties against

each other, pending before various courts. The amount of money was allegedly

paid to the petitioner by the complainant while they were in relationship as is

evident from the complaint that is since 2018. The amount alleged to have paid is

Rs. 9, 91, 501.49 on various dates which are alleged to be found from the bank

statement attached with the complainant. The question boils up even if the

allegations are accepted in its entirety whether the same would attract Section

420 or not.

13. In this case the Learned Court considered the statement made on SA under

Section 200 Cr.P.C where he stated before the Court about transfer of some

amount from his account to the accused person and then he got married with

her and after marriage she behaved with him badly. The Magistrate took

cognizance on 20

th

July, 2022 on the basis of such statement without giving a

single reasoning as to what prompted him to take the cognizance on the said

Page 10 of 19

nature of statement and the allegations made in the complaint where no iota of

ingredients can be found on the face of the complaint which can constitute an

offence under Section 420 IPC. The learned Advocate in this regard relied upon

the case of Bhushan kumar (supra) where it was held that the Magistrate is

not bound to give reasons for issuing an order of summons under section 204

as this provision does not mandate the Magistrate to explicitly state the

reasons for issuance of summons but it mandates the Magistrate to form an

opinion as to whether there exits sufficient ground for summons to be issued.

In the case of U.P Pollution Control Board (supra), Kanti Bhadra Shah

(supra) also it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is no legal

requirement for trial court to pass a detailed order while issuing process,

whether summons or warrant under section 204. Similarly in Rikhab Birani

& Anr. versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr

9

. The Hon’ble Supreme court

referred the observation made in Thermax Limited and Others v. K.M.

Johny and Others

10

, which held that-

“courts should be watchful of the difference between

civil and criminal wrongs, though there can be

situations where the allegation may constitute both

civil and criminal wrongs. Further, there has to be a

conscious application of mind on these aspects by the

Magistrate, as a summoning order has grave

consequences of setting criminal proceedings in

motion. Though the Magistrate is not required to

record detailed reasons, there should be adequate

evidence on record to set criminal proceedings into

motion. The Magistrate should carefully scrutinize the

9

2025 INSC 512

10

(2011) 13 SCC 412

Page 11 of 19

evidence on record and may even put questions to the

complainant/investigating officer etc. to elicit answers

to find out the truth about the allegations. The

summoning order has to be passed when the

complaint or charge sheet discloses an offence and

when there is material that supports and constitutes

essential ingredients of the offence. The summoning

order should not be passed lightly or as a matter of

course.”

14. In Maksud Saiyed vs State o f Gujarat & Ors.

11

the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that –

“15. This Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another

v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others [(1998)

5 SCC 749)], held as under:

"28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is

a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into

motion as a matter of course. It is not that the

complainant has to bring only two witnesses to

support his allegations in the complaint to have the

criminal law set into motion. The order of the

Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that

he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and

the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the

nature of allegations made in the complaint and the

evidence both oral and documentary in support

thereof and would that be sufficient for the

complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to

the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent

spectator at the time of recording of preliminary

evidence before summoning of the accused. The

11

(2008) 5 SCC 668

Page 12 of 19

Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence

brought on record and may even himself put

questions to the complainant and his witnesses to

elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the

allegations or otherwise and then examine if any

offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the

accused."”

Therefore even though the Magistrate is not required to give a detailed

reasoning but the prima facie satisfaction before issuance of summons is sine

qua non and hence such prima facie satisfaction must get reflected in the

order while issuing process which was absolutely missing in this case.

Similarly in the case as relied upon by Mr.Mit Guha Roy in Sunil Bharti

Mittal (supra) it was held that “a wide discretion has been given as to grant or

refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised .A person ought not be

dragged into court merely because a complaint has been filed .If prima facie

case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be

refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction”.

Therefore it is apparent that while issuing summon the Learned Magistrate

failed to express that he was prima facie satisfied about the materials to

constitute an offence under section 420 IPC.

15. In the case of Rikhab Birani (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court further

discussed the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC after

taking note of the various judicial pronouncement which is as follows ;

“In Lalit Chaturvedi and Others v. State of

Uttar Pradesh and Another 2024 SCC Online

SC 171. This Court quoted an earlier decision in

Page 13 of 19

Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of

Bihar and Another (2009) 8 SCC 751. Wherein,

referring to Section 420 of the IPC, it was observed

that the offence under the said Section requires the

following ingredients to be satisfied:

“18. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of

an offence of cheating are made out. The essential

ingredients of the offence of “cheating” are as

follows: (i) deception of a person either by making a

false or misleading representation or by dishonest

concealment or by any other act or omission;

(ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that

person to either deliver any property or to consent to

the retention thereof by any person or to

intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or

omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if

he were not so deceived; and

(iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause

damage or harm to that person in body, mind,

reputation or property.”

16. In the case of Prem Kumar Agarwal (supra) a specific amount of loan was

taken for the purpose of tissue paper business by the in laws promising good

returns and partnership and a partial payment was also received and the

entire facts and circumstances of the case was totally on different footing than

this and hence distinguishable. The other decisions on the point that marital

relationship does not negate the offence of cheating also disclose specific

allegations which are absolutely missing in this case.

Page 14 of 19

17. In this case the Opposite Party no. 2 did not file any complaint immediately

after the marital discord cropped up but lodged the same after several

proceedings were initiated against him by the petitioner including a complaint

lodged against him and his family members under Section 498A IPC. It is

found from the written statement filed by the husband in connection with the

matrimonial suit filed for divorce by the petitioner he never uttered a single

word regarding payment of such money. More so, he also filed a matrimonial

suit against the present petitioner for divorce under Section 13 of Hindu

Marriage Act where also he never made any such allegation against the present

petitioner.

18. It is no more res integra that in exercise of power under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure this court should not hold a mini trial but it is

observed and held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that when the incident of

abuse of the process of law and the court should not confined him within the

written complaint itself and must look into the overall circumstances in order

to prevent such process of law. It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in Suman Mishra ors. vs the State of Uttar Pradesh Anr

12

. Where the

Hon’ble court relied on several judicial pronouncement delineating the duty of

the High Court in deciding a quashing petition took note of the case of Iqbal

alias Bala and others

13

where it was held that:-

“whenever an accused comes before the court

invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482

of the code of criminal procedure or extraordinary

12

2025 INSC 203

13

(2023) 8 SCC 734

Page 15 of 19

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get

the FIR of the criminal proceedings quashed

essentially on the ground that such proceedings are

manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such

circumstances the oath owes a duty to look into the

FIR with care and a little more closely”. It was

further held that “in frivolous or vexatious proceeding

the court while exercising its jurisdiction under

Section 482 Cr.P.C or Article 226 of the Constitution

did not restrict itself only to the stage of the case but

is empowered to take into acc ount the overall

circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of

the case as well as the materials collected in course

of investigation”.

In the said case multiple FIR when registered over a period of time and

therefore it was held that where multiple FIR have been registered over a

period of time, it is in the background of such circumstances the registration

of multiple FIR as Jews importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking

vengeance out of Private on personal grudge as alleged.

19. In CBI vs. Aryan Sing and Ors (supra) the investigation was handed over to

CBI pursuant to the direction of High Court and the discharge application filed

by the petitioners were dismissed by the trial court and subsequently the

entire charge sheet was quashed by High court in exercise of power under

Section 482 Cr.P.C and then it was held that the court exceeded in its

jurisdiction but in this case in the light of above discussion and after going

through the content of the complaint itself no iota of materials can be found

which can fulfil the required criteria as envisaged in Section 420 IPC .

Page 16 of 19

20. In the celebrated decision of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajanlal &

Ors. (Supra) in paragraph 102 the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the

situation and the power under Section 482 to be exercised and that is as

follows:-

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the

various relevant provisions of the Code under

Chapter XIV and o f the principles of law

enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions

relating to the exercise of the extraordinary

power under Article 226 or the inherent powers

under Section 482 of the Code which we have

extracted and reproduced above, we have given

the following categories of cases by way of

illustration wherein such power could be

exercised either to prevent abuse of the process

of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of

justice, though it may not be possible to lay

down any precise, clearly d efined and

sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines

or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of

myriad kinds of cases wherein such power

should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first

information report or the complaint, even if they

are taken at their face value and accepted in

their entirety do not prima facie constitute any

offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information

report and other materials, if any, accompanying

the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,

Page 17 of 19

justifying an investigation by police officers

under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an

order of a Magistrate within the purview of

Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in

the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected

in support of the same do not disclose the

commission of any offence and make out a case

against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not

constitute a cognizable offence but constitute

only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is

permitted by a police officer without an order of a

Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)

of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or

complaint are so absurd and inherently

improbable on the basis of which no prudent

person can ever reach a just conclusion that

there is sufficient ground for proceeding against

the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted

in any of the provisions of the Code or the

concerned Act (under which a criminal

proceeding is instituted) to the institution and

continuance of the proceedings and/or where

there is a specific provision in the Code or the

concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for

the grievance of the aggrieved party.

Page 18 of 19

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

attended with mala fide and/or where the

proceeding is maliciously instituted with an

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the

accused and with a view to spite him due to

private and personal grudge.”

21. The aforesaid guideline clearly establishes that where the allegations

contained in the FIR, even if accepted in their entirety and taken at face value,

failed to prima facie disclose the commission of any offence, and the power

under Section 482 may be exercised. It is equally settled that this inherent

jurisdiction can be exercised to prevent abuse of law and to secure the ends of

justice. In order to attract Section 420 of IPC there must be a dishonest

inducement and deception leading to the delivery of property or the amount

but in the present it is alleged that husband had from time to time paid certain

amount to the petitioner when they were in a relationship and the opposite

party no. 2 never raised the dispute so long such relationship followed by their

marriage continued peacefully. He alleged to have paid further amount time to

time to her even after marriage and the aggregate of such amount accumulated

to more than 9 lakhs by the time the complaint was lodged. Significantly, the

complaint was instituted after the wife had already initiated several

proceedings against the husband .Therefore question of inducement or

deception since beginning is absolutely missing rather it clearly manifest the

maliciousness in lodging such delayed complaint. More so even if any amount

paid to the petitioner is not returned it attracts civil liability and can never be

termed s cheating.

Page 19 of 19

Conclusion

22. Hence this Court is of the view from the above discussions on the facts and

law that if the proceeding pending before the court of Learned Magistrate is

allowed to be continued it would be sheer abuse of the process of court and

hence the proceeding should be quashed.

23. Accordingly this criminal revisional application stands allowed. The

proceeding pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2

nd

Court at

Alipore vide AC case no 1336 of 2022 is hereby quashed.

24. Urgent certified copy of the order if applied for be provided to the parties

upon observance of all necessary requirements.

[CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.]