Page 1 of 15

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:-

HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.

CRR 4013 OF 2022

SHRI ABHISHEK BISWAS ALIAS AVISHEK BISWAS ALIAS AVISHE K

BISWAS ALIAS ABHISHEKH BISWAS & ORS.

VERSUS

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indranuj Dutta, Adv.

Mr. Benazir Sk., Adv.

For the Opposite

Party no. 2 : Mr. Samrat Banerjee, Adv.

Mr. Argha Mondal, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Avished Sinha, Adv.

Ms. Jonaki Saha, Adv.

Last heard on : 30.03.2026

Judgement on : 11.06.2026

Uploaded on : 11.06.2026

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.: -

1. The instant Revisional Application in connection with the quashing of

impugned proceeding being G.R Case No. 13 of 2022 pending before the

Page 2 of 15

Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Serampore, Hooghly arising out of

Serampore Police Station Case No. 03 of 2022 under Section

498A/406/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal C ode, 1960 and all subsequent

orders passed by the Learned ACJM, Serampore .

Fact of the case

2. The Opposite Party no. 2 is the wife of petitioner no.1 and their marriage was

solemnised on 25.12.2019 according to the provisions of Special Marriage Act,

1954 and the social marriage held on 26.2.2020 and since thereafter the

parties were living at the house of father-in-law and blessed with a child born

on 1.12.2020. A complaint was lodged by the Oppo site Party No. 2 under

section 156(3) of code of criminal procedure, 1970 against the present

petitioners alleging of demand of dowry, physical and mental torture since

after her marriage and also that petitioner no.1 is a patient of psychiatric and

mentally unfit . It was alleged in the written complaint that after being severely

assaulted she was driven away from the matrimonial house and went to

Serampore Walsh Hospital for treatment. She went to lodge the complaint

initially which was denied by the con cerned police station and being

dissatisfied she sent the complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Serampore

Commissionerate, Hooghly and also the Sub-divisional police officer by speed

post on 17.12.2021 and then after completing all the formalities lodged the

complaint under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C before the learned ACJM,

Serampore, Hooghly. In terms of order dated 27.12.20 2021 the learned ACJM

registered a first information report under Section 498A/406/323/506/34 of

Page 3 of 15

the Indian Penal Code and after completion of investigation the charge sheet

has been submitted against the present petitioners.

3. The petitioner no.1 is the husband of the Opposite Party No. 2 and petitioner

No. 2 and 3 are the parents-in-law who are permanently residing at a separate

mess at Kolkata and aged about 71 years and 66 years respectively. It is the

case of the petitioners that the opposite party No. 2 is a highly temperamental

and hypersensitive to the ordinary course of human nature and pick ed up

quarrel with the petitioner no. 1 without any rhyme and reason and often

made false allegations against the petitioner no.1 to all his relatives, friends

and even professional colleagues. It is the specific case of the petitioners that

they have been falsely dragged into this complaint with concocted story and it

is amply evident that it contains concocted, general and omnibus allegations

without mentioning of any specific date of any incident as alleged. The

petitioner no.1 has filed an application under section 25 of Guardian and

wards Act, 1990 before the Learned District Judge, Hooghly being ACT VIII

case no. 39 of 2022 praying for returning or providing custody of the minor

child to the petitioner number 1. He also filed an application under section 12

of the Guardian and wards Act praying for an order of interim custody and

visitation rights in respect of the minor son and on hearing the learned

advocates by an order dated 5.7.20 22, the Learned District Judge allowed the

said application with the observation that a father should not be devoid from

visiting his own child as fatherly affection is necessary to boost up the mental

faculties of the child. Accordingly direction was given to the opposite party No.

2/mother to bring a child in the Serampore court campus on every working

Saturday that is on first and third Saturday at 3 PM and the father is directed

Page 4 of 15

to meet his child for two hours. It is the specific case that the complaint has

been filed without complying the required conditions and the learned

Magistrate without applying judicial minds took cognizance of the charge sheet

which is an outcome of a perfunctory investigation and hence liable to be

quashed.

Submissions

4. The learned advocate representing the petitioner took the specific point of

maintainability of the application filed under 156 (3) Cr.P.C filed in respect of

any incident occurred to be alleged on 15.12.2021 with the affidavit filed on

24

th

December, 2021. In terms of Section 154(3) Cr.P.C the opposite party No.

2 has not furnished the required information when she approached before the

concerned police station and hence was not to be treated as a FIR by the

learned Magistrate. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s claim of false

implication of the petitioners get bolstered from the respective observation

made by the learned court in the order passed in connection with the bail

application as well as in the case filed by the petitioner for custody of the child.

No specific role has been attributed against the present petitioners for which

the allegations under section 498A/406/323 IPC can be attracted. The learned

Advocate relied upon the decision reported in, S.N Vijayalaxmi and others

versus State of Karnataka and Anr.

1

passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

where further concluded that directions issued in the case of Priyanka

Srivastava & Anr vs State Of U.P.& Ors .

2

are mandatory and guidelines

issued in the case of Priyanka Srivastava (Supra) operate prospectively,

1

INSC 2025 917

2

(2015) 6 SCC 287

Page 5 of 15

non-filing of the supportive affidavit is a curable defect, but must be cured

before the M agistrate passes any substantive order on the

complaint/application and if the Magistrate proceeds without the requisite

affidavit, such order/any consequential order/proceedings can be quashed on

the sole ground of non-compliance with Priyanka Srivastava (supra).

5. The learned advocate on the other hand relied upon the decision of Anurag

Bhatnagar of another and another versus Sta te (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

3

Radhye Sham Khemka & Anr. vs State of Bihar

4

, M/S Neharika

Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs State of Maharas htra

5

. It is his contention as

stated in the written notes of argument that the petitioner no.1 leads a life of

drunkenness and debauchery and manner of uncertain temperament a nd he

and his family members often abused extreme filthy and abusive language

towards the opposite party No. 2 in public places and in their own house and

finally she was driven out along with the baby on 16.12.2021 after assaulting

her both mentally and physically on imputing un-chastity. It is further

submitted that on completion of investigation the charge sheet has been

submitted which prima facie establish the allegations levelled against them for

which they should face the trial. It is further argued that the court cannot

embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the

allegation made in the FIR in the complaint and quashing of a complaint

should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule.

6. It is further argued that the it was held by Supreme Court that the High Court

should not while exercising power under Section 482 of the code of criminal

3

2025 INSC 895

4

(1993) 3 SCC 54

5

AIR 2021 SC 1918

Page 6 of 15

procedure usurp the jurisdiction of the trial court and the power cannot be

exercised to hold a parallel trial only on the basis of the statement and

documents collected during investigation and enquiry for the purpose of

expressing an opinion whether accused concerned is likely to be punished if

the trial is allowed to proceed.

7. The learned prosecution would submit that there are sufficient materials found

in course of investigation against the present petitioners for which they must

face the trial in order to test the veracity of the allegations and accordingly

prayed for dismissal of this Revisional Application. The Learned advocate

produced the case diary before the court.

Analysis

8. Having heard the rival contentions as well as on perusal of materials on record

it is found that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the opposite

party No. 2 was initially solemnised under Special Marriage Act,1954 since

they had a prior affair and subsequently social marriage held on 26.2.2020

and the child was born on 01.12.2020. The first-ever complaint can be found

to be lodged by the Opposite Party No. 2 before the court of ACJM, Hooghly in

the year 2021 alleging a specific incident occurred on 15.12.2021. The content

of the written complaint discloses about their love affairs prior to their

marriage and at the time of marriage as per demand of the accused persons

the furniture, jewelleries and utensils were given to the husband and in-laws

but since after marriage all of them started physical and mental torture

without providing food to her, without any treatment when she bec ame

pregnant and entire medical expenses where borne by her father under severe

Page 7 of 15

pressure of the petitioner no.1. Despite that in order to save the matrimonial

tie she continued to lead the conjugal life and gave birth to the male child on

1.12.20 20. Thereafter on 15.12.2021 her husband and parents -in-law

physically assaulted and often abused her with filthy languages and locked

them inside the room for the entire night tried to kill her by strangulation and

in the morning she left the matrimonial house to her father’s house which is

only five minutes away from the matrimonial home but the petitioners

trespassed into her father’s house and assaulted her and abused her and also

threatened her agent at the to kill. Since then she is residing at her father’s

house and then intimated the entire incident to Serampore Police Station but

no action was taken and thereafter lodged the complaint under 156(3) of

Cr.P.C.

9. Therefore it is evident from the nature of complaint that the argument made

by the learned advocate on behalf of the Opposite P arty No. 2 that after

complying with all the formalities including intimating the superintendent of

police by speed post and after no action was taken such complaint was lodged

is found to be baseless. It is also contradicts the case of made out before this

court that she was driven out from a matrimonial home when in the complaint

she stated to have been escaped and the petitioners went to her father’s house

and then assaulted and threatened. Now the question boils of for consideration

at the outset is the order passed by the learned Magistrate while sending the

letter of complaint to the OC in charge of Serampore police Station in terms of

the relevant provision was passed in accordance with law. In Priyanka

Srivastava versus State of U.P (supra) mandated certain procedure before

Page 8 of 15

invoking the provision of section 200 of Cr.P.C and with regard to compliance

of Section 154(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. The guidelines are that any person

aggrieved by non-registration of an FIR by the police is required to approach

the concerned Superintendent of Police and on his failure to take action, move

before the Magistrate concerned under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, by filing a

private complaint.

10. In the case of S.N. Vijayalaxmi (supra) the complainant took all such

steps, registered FIR and when finally no action was done filed the requisite

affidavit before the ACM M and during pendency of such private complaint the

complainant approached the Deputy Commissioner of police, Bangalore city.

On nothing being done even then, faced with such inaction the complainant

finally filed the accused it affidavit before the ACJM who referred the PCR to

the police culminating into the underlying FIR. The matter went up to the High

Court for quashing and the view taken that it was a curable defect since before

the referral order on the PCR by the ACMM for registering an FIR under

section156(3) of the CRPC, the required formalities were done. It was held by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court that:-

“this approach cannot be levelled erroneous. The

requirement under Priyanka Srivastava (supra) is

to safeguard the rights of the citizenry and to put a

stop to unjust criminal action and filing of vexatious

applications to settle personal scores. Thus, such

requirement could not be said to be a mere formality”.

It was specifically observed that:-

Page 9 of 15

“if after the filing of the complaint/application but

before any order thereon is passed, such requirement

is allowed to be fulfilled/complied with by the

complainant, it would not, in our view, run counter to

the law exposited in Priyanka Srivastava (supra).”

Accordingly, Hon’ble Apex Court concluded as follows-

“i) directions issued in Priyanka Srivastava

(supra) are mandatory;

ii) guidelines laid down in Priyanka Srivastava

(supra) operate prospectively.

iii) non-filing of the supporting affidavit is a curable

defect, but must be cured before the magistrate

passes any substantive order on the

complaint/application, and

iv) if the magistrate proceeds without the requisite

affidavit, such order/any consequential

orders/proceedings can be quashed on the sole

ground of non-compliance with Priyanka Srivastava

(supra) .”

This judgement was delivered on 31st July 2025.

11. The decision relied upon by the learned advocate representing the opposite

party No. 2 in Anurag Bhatnagar (supra ) was delivered on 25.7.2025 and

the point was discussed whether an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C

could have been filed without approaching the police authorities where the

informants neither approached the officer in charge of the police station nor

the superintendent of police concerned but directly gone to the Magistrate,

held that:-

Page 10 of 15

“the Magistrate ought not to have ordinarily

entertained the application under section 156(3) so as

to direct the police for registration of the FIR, rather, it

ought to have relegated the informant to first

approach the officer in charge of the police station and

then to the Superintendent of Police”.

However it was held that

“as entertaining an application directly by Magistrate

is a mere procedural irregularity and since the

Magistrate in a given circumstance is otherwise

empowered to pass such an order, the action of the

magistrate may not be illegal or without jurisdiction”.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case further held that wherein the order of

the Magistrate clearly states that ‘Heard’ the counsel or the application under

section 156(3) Cr.P.C and had ‘perused’ the complaint which reveals

commission of punishable offence and once and satisfaction has been recorded

even if wrongly, it is not liable to be interfered while in exercise of inherent

powers by the higher courts.

12. Therefore in the light of the above nature of observations made by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court it is apparently clear in the present case where the

Magistrate specifically mentioned in the order dated 27.12.2021 that the

complaint was lodged previously before the Serampore police station and

subsequently before the Chandannagore Police Commissionerate and such

order was not challenged. This court being not acting as a Revisional or

Appellate court is not required to test the legality of such order passed by the

learned Magistrate and therefore when subsequently the investigation has

Page 11 of 15

culminated into filing of the charge sheet it is to be seen whether by allowing

the proceeding to be continued further it would be an abuse of the process of

court or not. On close scrutiny of the entire contents of the written complaint

it is apparent that no specific role has been attributed against the petitioner

No. 2 & 3 who is the parents-in-law and resides in a separate mess. The

allegations are primarily general and omnibus in nature without specifying any

date or time or month excepting 15.12.2021. The injury report specifically

discloses the name of the petitioner No.1 being the husband. In the decision as

cited by the learned advocate of the Opposite Party No. 2 in M/S Neeharika

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra and Others (supra)

the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the exercise of power by the High Court

under Section 482 Cr.P.C and the parameters for exercise of such power and

scope of use of such power. In this regard the case of R.P. Kapur versus

State of Punjab

6

was referred where it was held and observed that-

“the inherent powers of the High Court under Section

561 of the earlier Code cannot be exercised in regard

to the matters specifically covered by the other

provisions of the Code; the inherent jurisdiction of the

High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in

a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the

process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends

of justice; ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted

against an accused person must be tried under the

provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be

reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an

interlocutory stage. After observing this, thereafter

6

AIR 1960 SC 866

Page 12 of 15

this Court then carved out some exceptions to the

above-stated rule, which are as under:

“(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal

bar against the institution or continuance of the

criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged.

Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance,

furnish cases under this category.

(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report

or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face

value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute

the offence alleged; in such cases no question of

appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of

looking at the complaint or the first information report

to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or

not.

(iii) Where the allegations made against the accused

person do constitute an offence alleged but there is

either no legal evidence adduced in support of the

case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly

fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of

cases it is important to bear in mind the distinction

between a case where there is no legal evidence or

where there is evidence which is manifestly and

clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and

cases where there is legal evidence which on its

appreciation may or may not support the accusation

in question. In exercising its jurisdiction under Section

561-A the High Court would not embark upon an

enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is

reliable or not. That is the function of the trial

Magistrate, and ordinarily it would not be open to any

Page 13 of 15

party to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction

and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the

evidence the accusation made against the accused

would not be sustained.””

In the decision P.V Krishnabhat and Anr. Versus State of Karnataka and

others

7

, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:-

“criminal law should not be used as a tool for

harassment or vendetta. The allegations in a criminal

complaint must be scrutinised with care to ensure

that it disclose a prima facie case before subjecting

individuals to the rigour of criminal trial”.

13. In the present case the genesis of the complaint lies upon the matrimonial

discord between the petitioner and the Opposite Party no 2.It is evident that in

the written complaint no specific role has been attributed against any of the

petitioner specially against the parents in law. It is therefore pertinent to see

the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of cases

where casual reference to family members of husband in absence of specific

allegation has been discouraged .In the decision of Geeta Meherotra and Anr

vs State of U.P

8

it was observed in hand that

“if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific

allegation against accused more so against the co-

accused specially in a matter arising out of

matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the

legal and judicial process to mechanically send the

named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless

of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which

7

2025 SCC On Line SC 484

8

(2012) 10 SCC 741

Page 14 of 15

would persuade the court to take cognisance of the

offence alleged against the relatives of the main

accused who are prima facie not found to have

indulged in physical and mental torture of the

complainant-wife. It is the well settled principle laid

down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the

FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the

court would be justified in quashing the proceedings

preventing the abuse of the process of law”.

Conclusion

14. The present case considering the nature of allegations coupled with the

managerial is collected in course of investigation and the injury report which

manifest the name of the petitioner number one husband this court is of the

view that there are no materials as alleged can constitute an offence under

Section 498A IPC or 323 IPC against the present petitioner No. 2 & 3 against

whom no specific role has been attributed in the entire content and therefore

there is no reason to allow the proceedings to continue against them further.

Accordingly the instant C.R.R 4013 of 2022 is allowed in part.

15. The proceeding pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate 2

nd

Court,

Serampore being G.R. case no. 13 of 2022 is quashed qua the petitioner No. 2

and 3 and they are discharged from their respective bail bonds.

16. So far the petitioner number 1 is concerned the Magistrate is directed to

proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

Page 15 of 15

17. Urgent certified copy to be provided if applied for after following all required

formalities.

[CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.]