Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Krishna Lal Paul & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 7 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL APPLICATION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 5025 of 2024
Krishna Lal Paul & Ors.
vs.
State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the petitioners : Mr. Md. Masudur Rahaman Paik,
Ms. Ahamina Nasrin.
For the State : Ramashis Mukherjee.
Judgment reserved on : 07.07.2026
Judgment delivered on : 07.07.2026
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J:
1. The revisional application has been preferred praying for
quashing of proceedings G.R. Case No. 219 of 2017 arising out of
Kaliayaganj P.S. Case No. 40 of 2017, under Sections
498A/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Raiganj.
2. The petitioners' case in short is that the petitioners are the
relatives of the husband (in laws) of the de facto complainant.
3. The de facto complainant in the present case was married to the
son of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 on 28th January, 2014. After
the marriage, the said Rajib Paul took all initiative to get tatkal
2
visa for the private respondent and they went to U.S.A. in the
month of February, 2014.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that after a few days, the defacto
complainant started inflicting cruelty upon her husband and
demanded that she wanted to return to her parental residence.
5. Subsequently, the de facto complainant returned to India on 18th
April, 2014 and since then has been residing with her parents.
6. The de facto complainant in the present case has alleged in her
written complaint that after returning to India when she was
staying in her matrimonial home, the in laws have physically and
mentally tortured her for want of dowry.
7. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the State has placed the
case diary.
8. On perusal of the materials on the case diary and the materials
on records, it appears that the son of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2,
who is the husband of the de facto complainant, filed a
matrimonial suit, seeking divorce, in Matrimonial Suit No. 39
of 2015 on 23rd June, 2015.
9. After the summons in the said case, which is pending before the
learned Additional District and Session Judge at Raiganj, was
served upon the de facto complainant in the year 2017, the de
facto complainant being the opposite party therein prayed for
transfer of the matrimonial suit from Alipore to Raiganj and
subsequently, the de facto complainant filed the present case
3
before Kaliayaganj police station on 8th February, 2017. The
case was registered as Kaliayaganj P.S. case No. 40 of 2017
under Sections 498A/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
10. On perusal of the materials on record, this Court finds that
charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, on completion of
investigation, for offence punishable under Sections
498A/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
11. No ingredients were found during investigation to constitute an
offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code as alleged.
12. 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
4valuable security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such demand.
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
5
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 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
6
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 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
7
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.”
13. It appears from the record, that the present case was instituted
in 2017, when the de facto complainant received summons in the
matrimonial suit instituted in 2015. As such it appears that the
present case was filed as a counter blast to the filing of the
matrimonial suit for divorce by the husband.
14. The materials in the case diary in the present case shows
that the allegations are general in nature. The allegations
made by the de facto complainant has also not been
substantiated. As such permitting the case to proceed
against the petitioners herein, will clearly be an abuse of the
process of law, considering that none of the ingredients
required to constitute the offences alleged are present
against the petitioners herein.
15. CRR 5025 of 2024 is thus allowed.
16. The proceedings G.R. Case No. 219 of 2017 arising out of
Kaliayaganj P.S. Case No. 40 of 2017, under Sections
498A/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Raiganj, is hereby quashed
in respect of the petitioners namely Krishna Lal Paul, Bhakti
Rani Paul, Sanjay Paul, Rinku Paul and Swapna Paul.
17. All connected applications, if any, stands disposed of.
8
18. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
19. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for
necessary compliance.
20. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal
formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)
