Page 1 of 17

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:-

HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.

CRR 4577 OF 2022

SOUMENDR A PRASAD BHATTACHARYA & ORS.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

For the Petitioners : Ms. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee,Adv.

Mr. Aniket Mitra, Adv.

Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Adv.

Mr. Anupurba Banerjee, dv.

For the Opposite

Party no. 2 : Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, Sr.Adv.

Mr. Supreem Naskar, Adv.

Ms. Jayashree Patra, Adv.

Ms. Pritha Sinha, Adv.

For the State : Ms. Amita Gour, Adv.

Mr. K. Bapuli, Adv.

Last heard on : 13.04.2026

Judgement on : 17.06.2026

Uploaded on : 17.06.2026

Page 2 of 17

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.: -

1. This revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

has been filed for questioning the entire preceding in connection with ACGR -

2116/22 arising out of Garfa Police Station case no. 109/22, under Sections

498A/406/342/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, what’s pending before Learned

ACJM, Alipore, 24 Parganas South.

Fact of the case

2. The genesis of the case emerges from a complaint lodged before the officer in

charge of the Police Station by the Opposite Party no. 2 against the present

petitioners alleging inter alia that the marriage between the present Opposite

Party no. 2 and one Somyoti Bhattacharya held on 4.12.2011 and during her

marriage, huge amount of cash and gold ornaments were demanded which were

abided by the parents of the present complainant and the marriage was

registered on 9.4.2015. Soon after marriage, she went to Mumbai with her

husband and started residing there and they were blessed with a female child.

During pandemic, the complainant returned to Kolkata with her husband and he

got the infection of coronavirus and expired on 18.5.2021. Her daughter was also

affected on 20.4.2021 and on 27.4.2021, she was driven out of her matrimonial

house along with her daughter. Gold ornaments which were given to her by her

father were not handed over to her and when she went to her matrimonial home

with her father on 19.7.2021, they were ousted and also informed that the

accused person will sell her articles and will not allow the Opposite Party no. 2

to reside there. After that again on 16.5.2022, the accused persons came to their

paternal home and misbehaved with them. Petitioner no. 1to 4 surrendered

Page 3 of 17

before the Court of learned ACJM, prayed for Bail and were released on interim

bail.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner no.3 is the married sister-in-law

and petitioner no. 4 is a distant relative of petitioner No.1 . The petitioner no. 3

&4 resides in a separate address which is far from the address of the petitioner

no.1. Soon after marriage, the complainant insisted in staying separately with her

husband and accordingly they moved to Mumbai, but she never allowed the

petitioner no. 1& 2, the parents of the diseased son to talk with their

granddaughter over phone. It is the further case of the petitioners that the

complainant’s husband had fever from 22.4.2021 and on 27.4.2021, and got the

report that he is affected with coronavirus and died on 18.5.2021. Even after the

sad demise of their only son, the petitioner no.1 & 2 were not allowed to meet

their granddaughter. After few days of their son’s death, the house petitioner

no.2 was visited by the complainant and her father where they demanded to

handover the ownership of their only house in the name of complainant. They

feared that they might be out from their house at this old age and they did not

agree to it and they were threatened to be implicated in the false case by the

present opposite party no.2 . Accordingly, this complaint was lodged falsely

against the present petitioners who had no way involved in this case and only in

order to harass them and to grab the entire property of the present petitioners

No.1 & 2 this entire situation has been created and hence come before the court

to quash the proceeding.

Page 4 of 17

Submission

4. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that

marriage took place in the year 2011 and registered on 9.4.15, and the child was

born in the year 2013. There was no prior complaint during this long period

when they laid their conjugal life and the dispute started during the lifetime of

the husband as she admitted that she was dri ven out during his lifetime on

27.4.21. On 6.1.21, she received the gold jewelleries in presence of husband, but

it was not mentioned in the written the complaint that whether she received

back her other articles or not. A Title suit was filed by the father-in-law being

Title. Suit no. 616 of 2021 and an interim order was passed, restraining the

Opposite Party no. 2 from interfering with the peaceful possession . The seizure

list also disclosed that other articles were also seized and hence the entire story

as made out are all false and concocted. Relied upon Dara Lakshmi Narayana

and Others versus state of Telangana and Another

1

.

5. The learned Senior Advocate on the other hand, representing the opposite party

strongly opposes the contention of the petitioner and submitted that on the basis

of the complaint and investigation took place and the charge sheet has been

submitted and therefore this court in exercise of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot

embark upon an enquiry which is culminated into chargesheet and it should be

tested before the trial court. In this regard relied upon the decision of Taramani

Parakh versus State of MP

2

paragraph 5, 14, 16. The learned advocate further

relied upon the decision of Bhaskar Lal Sharma & Anr. versus Monica &

1

(2025) 3 SCC 735

2

(2015) 11 SCC 260

Page 5 of 17

Ors.

3

, Kaptan Singh versus State of U.P. & Ors.

4

, Rajesh Sharma and

others vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

5

, Geeta Mehrotra and Another

versus state of Uttar Pradesh and Another

6

.

6. On behalf of prosecution, it is submitted that in connection with the writ petition

filed by the opposite party no. 2 the bank account of the father-in- law is seized.

The materials collected in course of investigation are sufficient to substantiate

the allegations and the same should be tested in the trial.

Analysis

7. Heard the submissions. Much emphasis has been given by the learned Senior

advocate Mr. Chatterjee regarding the situation that had to be faced by the

present opposite party no. 2 who lost her husband due to Covid and due to the

suffering of her minor child from COVID-19 and she didn’t get any cooperation

from her Parents in law and other in-laws who tried to oust their daughter-in-

law and the grandchild from their house, despite having such situation and they

were successful and drove her out from the matrimonial house along with minor

child who had to take shelter to her parent’s house. The Learned Senior Advocate

tried to impress upon the court that during Covid situation a new type of torture

emerged on account of various domestic disputes which ought to be considered

more sympathetically as the nature of torture, specially the mental torture

cannot be equated with the usual torture mentioned by a victim of

domestic violence. In course of investigation the investigating authority

collected enough materials and a prima facie case is well established under

Section 498/406/ 342/ 506 /34 IPC against the accused persons. From the

3

(2014) 3 SCC 383

4

(2021) 9 SCC 35

5

(2018) 10 SCC 472

6

(2012) 10 SCC 741

Page 6 of 17

materials placed before the court and from the submissions advanced by the

learned counsels and the prosecution, it is apparent that the marriage took place

long back in the year 2011 and registration of such marriage held in the year

2015, and the birth of the child took place in the year 2013. The parties were

residing at Mumbai and the written complaint is silent about any visitation made

by the present petitioners no.1 & 2 during their prolong stay in Mumbai. The

Writ petition filed by the Opposite Party no .2 and her minor daughter, the

prayer made for a direction upon the authorities to supply the written

information regarding the Bank account, fixed deposit certificate, and other

certificate in the name of deceased husband of the petitioner no 1 and for a

direction upon the respondent/present petitioner no. 1 and 2 not to disburse

any amount or any deposit certificate lying in the name of deceased husband of

the present opposite party no. 2 to the joint account holder or nominee till

disposal of the Writ petition. On the basis of such prayer, the account of the

petitioner no. 1 and 2 has been freezed. A petition was filed by the opposite party

no. 2 and the minor girl under Section 12 of PWDV Act, 2005 and prayed for an

order under Section 19(a) of PWD Act, 2005 restraining the respondent from

disturbing the possession of the opposite party no. 2 from the shared household,

whether or not, the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared

household, further to secure same level of alternative accommodation for the

person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay ₹10,000 as

rent per month, other than maintenance of ₹20,000 to the opposite party

no. 2 and ₹30, 000/- to the minor child. They further prayed for

compensation of ₹10 lakhs. In such chequered history of strained

Page 7 of 17

relationship and the pending litigation it is to be decided whether it is a fit case

to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this court to quash the entire proceedings.

8. On perusal of the written complaint lodged before the officer in charge,Garfa

Police Station, Kolkata by the opposite party no.2 intimating the incident and the

torture suffered by the present opposite party no.2 did not disclose the date of

return to Kolkata from Mumbai. On 8.11.2020 her husband was affected by

Corona and expired on 18.5.2021. She also mentioned that the sudden demise of

her husband was a bolt from blue and she became very helpless as no one from

the matrimonial home stood beside her at that time.The minor daughter also

affected on 20.4.2021,which means during lifetime of the husband, the minor

also suffered the unfortunate virus attack.It is alleged that 27.4.2021 that is

prior to the death of her husband her daughter was driven out,accompanied by

their driver but no whisper can be found about the destination where such minor

child was taken by a driver. Admittedly, at that point of time.From the complaint,

also,it can be found that she did not specify as to when she was driven out,but

the complaint disclose when she came on 19.7.2021,along with her daughter

and father to their matrimonial house. She alleged wrongful confinement and

defamatory languages was used against her by her in laws.After that on

16.5.2022,all the petitioners went to her paternal house and informed that they

will not allow her and her daughter to the matrimonial house.

9. Therefore,it is to be construed from the above factual matrix that the wife never

left the matrimonial house or ousted from the matrimonial house during life time

of her husband or at least when her daughter was alleged to be sent to an

unknown destination with the driver then presently what she did after her

daughter was sent alone when she was residing at the time of illness of her

Page 8 of 17

husband till her husband died on 18.5 .2021.It is further found from the record

that the present petitioner No.2 , the mother-in-law also lodged one application

under Section 12 read with section 23 of the PWD Act before the court of learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate at Baruipur being criminal Misc. case no. 27 of 2022

against the opposite party no. 2. The case diary also disclosed that the present

petition no. 1, the father-in-law in compliance to the investigation, submitted the

documents, which on the face of it manifest that during lifetime of the husband

on 6.1.2021, the opposite party no. 2 collected all her jewellery from the custody

of the present petitioner no. 1 and 2 and also the other articles on 6. 1. 21 and

duly signed over such document. After that again on 19.7.21 she received other

articles,Therefore, on the face of it, it is apparent that the marital discord cropped

up between the opposite party no.2 with her husband and in-laws during the

lifetime of the husband, and it is her own case that her husband suffered

COVID-19 and expired in the month of May 2021 that is prior to the death of her

husband and when he was suffering from Covid 19 she took back all her

articles, but this fact has not been stated in the written complaint.

10. In the decision of Taramani Parakh versus State of MP (Supra) as relied by

the learned Senior Advocate , a complaint was lodged by the wife against the

husband and his parents with allegation regarding demand of dowry and the

application for quashing was filed on the ground of false complaint filed after

filing divorce petition ,which was allowed by the High Court and held that from

reading of the complaint, it cannot be held that even if the allegations are taken

as proved no cases made out. Matter travelled up to Hon’ble Supreme Court

where the principles of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C was reiterated

and held that “where the factual foundation of an offence has been laid down, the

Page 9 of 17

courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on

the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be

satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirement of the offence.” It

was held further that there were allegations against the husband and his parents

for harassing the complainant which for her to leave the matrimonial home and

she continues to be separated from the matrimonial home as she apprehended

lack of security and safety and proper environment in the matrimonial home. The

question whether the applicant was in fact, was treated with cruelty is a matter

of trial and hence cannot be said that this stage that no cases made out. The

order of the High Court was set aside.

11. In the decision of Bhaskar Lal Sharma & Anr. versus Monica & Ors.

(Supra) it was held that cruelty is defined in explanation to section 498A IPC has

a twofold meaning-while instances of physical torture would be plainly evident

from pleadings, allegations as to conduct, which has caused is likely to cause

mental injury would be far more subtle . It was further observed that-

“it is only unnecessary for us to embark upon a

discourse as records the scope and ambit of the

court’s power to quash a criminal proceeding. The

appreciation, even in a summary manner of the

averments made in a complaint petition or FIR

would not be permissible at the stage of quashing

and the fact stated will have to be accepted as they

appear on the very face of it”.

In the decision of Kaptan Singh versus State of U.P. & Ors (Supra) the charge

sheet was submitted when the proceeding was quashed by the High Court. The

Page 10 of 17

charges were under Section 147/148/149/406/329 and 386 IPC. The matter

was at the stage of FIR in that case, and it was held that-

“If the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C was at the

stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the FIR

/complaint only are required to be considered and

whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is

required to be considered. However, thereafter, when

the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and

the charge sheet is filed after conclusion of the

investigation/enquiry, the matter on different footing

and the court is required to consider the

material/evidence collected during the investigation.

Even at that stage also, as observed and held by this

Court in catena of decisions, the High Court is not

required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or

entered into the merits of the case, as if the High Court

is exercising, the appellate jurisdiction and or

conducting the trial. As held by this Court in

Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs State of Gujarat,

(2018) 3 SCC 104 in order to examine as to whether

factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence

or not, the High Court cannot act like the investigating

agency nor can exercise the power like an appellate

court.”

Page 11 of 17

At that stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can draw its own

inferences from contents of FIR and prima facie materials, requiring no proof.

12. With regard to the allegations arising out of matrimo nial discord and

implicating the family members of the husband has been discussed in the

decision of Preeti Gupta and A nother versus State of Jharkhand and

Another

7

where the application under section 482 was filed for quashing of a

complaint lodged under Section 498 A IPC against the unmarried brother and

sister of complainant’s husband who were neither residing with complainant in

her matrimonial home, not visited her. Hon’ble Supreme Court while expressing

concern about the increasing number of lodging of complaint under section 498A

even over trivial issues held that “every High Court has inherent power to act ex

debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which

alone it exists or to prevent the abuse of process of court”. It was observed that-

“Inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C can

be exercised:

i) to give effect to an order under the Code;

ii) to prevent the abuse of process of Court; and

iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.”

The Supreme Court referred the decision of State of Haryana & Ors. versus

Bhajanlal & Ors.

8

where the categories of cases by way of illustration was

discussed wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of

process of court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Hon’ble Supreme

7

(2010) 7 SCC 667

8

1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

Page 12 of 17

Court also took note of Zandu pharmaceutical Works Limited. Vs Mohd.

Sharaful Haque

9

where in paragraph 8, it was observed:

“8.…. It would be an abuse of process of court to allow

any action which would result in injustice and prevent

promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers,Court

would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds

that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the

process of court or quashing of these proceedings which

otherwise serve the end of justice. When no offence is

disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the

question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be

quashed it is permissible has alleged and whether any

offence is made out, even if the allegations are accepted

in toto.”

In the decision of Achin Gupta versus state of Haryana and Another

10

, it

was held that -

“Once the investigation is over and chargesheet is

filed, the FIR pales into insignificance. The court,

thereafter, owes the duty to look into all the materials

collected by the investigating agency in the form of

charge sheet. There is nothing in the words of section

482 of the CRPC, which restrict the exercise of the

power of the court to prevent the abuse of process of

court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the

FIR. It would be a travesty of justice to hold that the

proceedings initiated against a person can be

interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has

materialised into charge sheet.”

9

(2005) 1 SCC 122

10

2024 INSC 369

Page 13 of 17

13. Therefore, from the above discussion held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

various judicial announcements, it is evident that the court should exercise the

inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process of law. In the light of above

discussion, it is also apparent that such power can be exercised, not only at the

stage of FIR but also when the investigation culminated into a charge sheet. In

the present case, the complaint was lodged before the police station against the

parents in law as well as the petitioner No.3 & 4, who are the married sister-in-

law and petitioner no. 4, a distant relative of petitioner no. 1. Nowhere in the four

corner of the written complaint, any allegation can be found attributed against

those petitioner and excepting that the parents in law did not allow them to enter

into the matrimonial house on 19.7.2021, along with their associate, namely

Samrat Bhattacharjee and Kamal Kanti Ghosh, who confined them and used

defamatory language and that sister-in-law involved with her parents in

concealing her articles. Addressing the issue of false implications of the family

members without any specific allegations in the complaint lodged by the wife, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra and Another versus state of Uttar

Pradesh and Another (supra) observed that-

“….casual reference of the names of the family

members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of

active involvement in the matter would not justify

taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact

borne out of experience that there is a tendency to

involve the entire family members of the household in a

Page 14 of 17

domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial

dispute….”

14. Therefore on the face of the complaint, no materials can be found against the

petitioner no. 3 and 4 to attract either 498A or 406 of IPC as alleged and against

them no further proceeding should be allowed to be continued . So far the

petitioner no. 1 and 2 are concerned, in the complaint it is mentioned about

demand of dowry and giving jewellery and other articles at the time of marriage

which took place in the year 2011 and no prior complaint can be found to have

been lodged by the de facto complainant. Since the charge sheet has been

submitted, the material collected in court of investigation also support the

contention of the present petitioner that during the lifetime of the husband, she

took call her jewellers from the custody of the parents in law by putting her

signature which she never mentioned in the written complaint. It is also evident

from the content of the written complaint that the de facto complainant and her

husband used to reside in Mumbai since after marriage, and no whisper can be

found about any torture inflicted upon her by the parents in law while she was

staying in Mumbai and after demise of her husband when her minor daughter

also infected with coronavirus, then only the dispute cropped up.

Section 498A of the Indian penal code defines cruelty which reads as follows.

“Section 498A. Husband or relative of husband of

a woman subjecting her to cruelty.

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the

husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty

shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which

Page 15 of 17

may extend to three years and shall also be liable to

fine.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, "cruelty

means"—

(a) anywilful conduct which is of such a nature as is

likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause

grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether

mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment

is with a view to coercing her or any person related to

her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or

valuable security or is on account of failure by her or

any person related to her to meet such demand.”

15. In the present case, no whisper can be found regarding any such torture or

cruelty meted out to her who is otherwise to that extent which can likely to drive

the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger of life, limb or

health. On close scrutiny, of the entire facts and circumstances it is apparent

that the dispute pertains to giving access to the Opposite Party no. 2 to reside in

the residential house of the present petitioners in terms of section 12 of of PWD

Act, 2005, the right of residence of a married lady at her matrimonial house as

shared household has been dealt with and the opposite party no. 2 has taken

recourse to that provision. Whether the shared household will be given to her or

not cannot be the concern in a proceeding emerged out of a complaint lodged

under 498A or 406 of IPC. It is unfortunate that the opposite party no. 2 lost her

husband, but this court cannot be oblivious to the fact that the aged parents too

have lost their only son and because of the domestic dispute further they are

deprived of having association of their granddaughter. The content of the written

Page 16 of 17

complaints failed to disclose any such incident which can come within the

parameters of 498A or 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

16. In a recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana

and Others versus state of Telangana and A nother (Supra) it was observed

and held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that:-

“30. The inclusion of Section 498A IPC, by way of an

amendment was intended to guard cruelty inflicted on a

woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift

intervention by the state. However, in recent years, as there

has been a notable rise in matrimonial dispute across the

country, accompanied by growing discord within the

institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a

growing tendency to misuse provisions like 498A IPC as a

tool for unleashing, personal vendetta against the husband

and his family by the wife. Making vague and generalised

allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinise,

will lead to the misuse of legal process and an

encouragement for use of on twisting tactics wife and or her

family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke section 498A

IPC against the husband and his family in order to see

compliance with the unreasonable dema nd of a wife.

Consequently, the Supreme Court has, time and again,

cautioned against prosecuting, the husband and his family

in the absence of a clear primer case against them.”

Page 17 of 17

17. I n the present case as it can be found that the opposite party No.2 was living in

her parents’ house along with the minor daughter. By filing writ petition, the

account of the present petitioners are also freezed on the prayer made by the

opposite party no 2. A mere reference to the names of family members without

specific allegations, indicating their active involvement should be nip in the bud

as held by the Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others (supra).

Conclusions

18. Hence, considering all the facts and circumstances, this court is unable to

agree with the contention of the learned Senior Advocate, Mr Jayant Narayan

Chatterjee, that it is a fit case which should be allowed to be continued since the

charge levelled against the petitioners who are the parents in law, marriage,

sister-in-law, and a distant relative and charge sheet has been filed.

19. Accordingly, this revisional application stands allowed.

20. The proceeding pending before the learned Magistrate being ACGR -2116/22

against the present petitioners are hereby quashed and they are discharged from

their respective bail bond.

21. All connected applications are hereby disposed of.

22. Urgent certified copy of the order, if applied for, be provided to the parties upon

observance of all necessary requirements.

[CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.]