IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 2092 of 2023
With
CRAN 2 of 2024
Smt. Tanusree Das alias Tanushree Das
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal and another
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indranuj Dutta,
Ms. Benazir Sk.
For the State : Mr. Imran Ali,
Ms. Debjani Sahu.
For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Avijit Addya,
Mr. Bidyut Baran Biswas.
Hearing concluded on : 16.12.2024
Judgment on : 24.12.2024
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
1. The present revisional application has been preferred praying for
quashing of the impugned proceeding being G.R. Case No. 729 of 2023
pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court,
Krishnanagar, Nadia arising out of Kotwali Police Station Case No. 630
of 2022 dated 23.06.2022 under Sections 498A/323/325/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and all orders passed therein in connection with the
instant case.
2
2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner is an Assistant Teacher in a
Government School at Chakdaha, District-Nadia. The de facto
complaint is married to the petitioner’s brother since 2006.
3. The de facto complainant is a permanent resident of Krishnanagar,
Nadia and the petitioner is a permanent resident of Chakdaha, Nadia
being married at Chakdaha. The distance between the two places is
about 50 kms.
4. The allegation in this case is for offences punishable under Sections
498A/323/325/34 of IPC.
5. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. vs State of Telangana & Anr.,
in Criminal Appeal No. ………… of 2024 (arising out of SLP
(Criminal) No. 16239 of 2024, decided on December 10, 2024, the
Supreme Court held:-
“15. An offence is punishable under Section 498A of the IPC
when a husband or his relative subjects a woman to cruelty,
which may result in imprisonment for a term extending up to
three years and a fine. The Explanation under Section
498A of the IPC defines “cruelty” for the purpose of Section
498A of the IPC to mean any of the acts mentioned in
clauses (a) or (b). The first limb of clause (a) of the
Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC, states that “cruelty”
means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as is likely
to drive the woman to commit suicide. The second limb of
clause (a) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC,
states that cruelty means any wilful conduct that is of such a
nature as to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. Further,
clause (b) of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC
states that cruelty would also include harassment of the
woman where such harassment is to coerce 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.
3
16. Further, Section 3 of the Dowry Act deals with penalty
for giving or taking dowry. It states that any person who
engages in giving, taking, or abetting the exchange of dowry,
shall face a punishment of imprisonment for a minimum of
five years and a fine of not less than fifteen thousand rupees
or the value of the dowry, whichever is greater. Section 4 of
the Dowry Act talks of penalty for demanding dowry. It
states that any person demanding dowry directly or
indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardians of
a bride or bridegroom shall be punishable with imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which
may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to
ten thousand rupees.
18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations
made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other
than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that
appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2
has not provided any specific details or described any
particular instance of harassment. She has also not
mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the
alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks
concrete and precise allegations.
25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a
criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without
specific allegations indicating their active involvement should
be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of
judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate
all the members of the husband’s family when domestic
disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised
and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence
or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for
criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such
cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal
process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent
family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6,
who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have
been living in different cities and have not resided in the
matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2
herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal
prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process
of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against
each of them.
28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an
amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a
woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift
intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there
4
have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the
country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within
the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a
growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of
the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against
the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and
generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not
scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an
encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife
and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to
invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his
family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable
demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and
again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his
family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against
them.
29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who
has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated
under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and
forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any
criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid
observations but we should not encourage a case like as in
the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for
dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband
of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section
498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion
of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a
woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home
primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes
it is misused as in the present case.
30. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V.
Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 observed as follows:
“12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in
recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main
purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle
down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial
skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in
which elders of the family are also involved with the result
that those who could have counselled and brought
about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being
arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many
other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not
encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may
ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes
5
amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a
court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and
in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing
their “cases” in different courts.”
31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of
Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to
be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these
complaints and must take pragmatic realties into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The
allegations of harassment by the husband’s close relatives
who had been living in different cities and never visited or
rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would
have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the
complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care
and circumspection.
32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR
No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with
ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against
appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2
to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within
category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan
Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in
not exercising the powers available to it under Section
482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s
process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the
appellants.”
6. As seen from the allegations as made in the written complaint by
the opposite party no. 2, it appears that there is no specific allegation
against the present petitioner, who is the married sister-in-law (nanad)
of the defacto complainant. The allegations are general in nature and
the petitioner herein has been named only in the cause title of the
petition under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. There does not appear to be
any specific allegations against her in the contents of the said
application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C.
7. The materials in the case diary also shows that the allegations are
general in nature and the written complaint in the case has been
6
filed after almost 18 years of marriage and permitting the case to
proved against the petitioner herein, will clearly be an abuse of the
process of law.
8. CRR 2092 of 2023 is thus allowed.
9. The proceeding being G.R. Case No. 729 of 2023 pending before the
learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia arising out
of Kotwali Police Station Case No. 630 of 2022 dated 23.06.2022 under
Sections 498A/323/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby
quashed in respect of the petitioner namely Tanusree Das alias
Tanushree Das.
10. All connected applications, if any, stands disposed of.
11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
12. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary
compliance.
13. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal
formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)
