Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mrigesh Kanti Nath & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 9 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:-
HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.
CRR 4014 OF 2023
MRIGESH KANTI NATH & ORS.
VS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Ld. Sr. Adv.
Mr. Somenath Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Ms. Pragya Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Kaustav Chatterjee, Adv.
For the Opposite
Party no. 2 : Ms. Debaleena Ganguly, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld.P.P.
Mr. Imran Ali, Adv.
Mrs. Debjani Sahu, Adv.
Last heard on : 17.02.2026
Judgement on : 09.04.2026
Uploaded on : 09.04.2026
Page 1 of 16
CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J. :-
1.
This provisional application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the entire proceeding being ACGR 5383/2022
arising out of Jadavpur Police Station case no. 245/22 dated 1.12.2022, under
Section 498A, 406, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with
Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act now pending before the court of
the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24 Parganas South at Alipore
and the Charchit no. 248 of 2022 dated 21.12.2022, and all orders passed in
connection with the proceeding now pending before the learned additional
chief judicial magistrate 24 Parganas South at Alipore.
Factual Matrix of the case
2. Bereft of any details the case of the petitioner is that a complaint was lodged
by one Jyothi Bala Nath/Opposite Party no. 2, before the Jadavpur Police
Station against the petitioner and three others for commission of the alleged
offences punishable under Section 498A IPC read with section 3 and 4 of the
dowry prohibition Act, 1961. The allegations levelled against the present
petitioner is that the marriage was held on March 2022 and the present
petitioners being the husband and in-laws of the de facto complainant in
furtherance of their common intention, subjected her to physical and mental
torture as well as to misappropriate her Stridhan articles and intimidated her.
From the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C the Stridhan articles were
seized and handed over to the defacto complainant upon furnishing.
Zimmanama. The investigating authority submitted the charge sheet only
against the petitioners for commission of the offences as and no charge could
Page 2 of 16
be established against three other accused persons and they were excluded
from the charge sheet.
Submissions
3. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya argued that on true
and proper appreciation of the materials collected during investigation would
reveal that the Opposite Party no. 2 lodged the complaint against the
petitioners, which never reflect any of the ingredients necessary to attract the
charges, levelled against them. Astoundingly, the investigating officer accepted
the version of the Opposite Party no. 2 as sacrosanct without making any
endeavour to unearth the truth. It is further submitted that the accused
petitioner number2 is the father-in-law age about 67 years old and underwent
an open heart bypass surgery on August 6, 2022 and had four coronary artery
bypass grafting procedures at Rabindranath Tagore Hospital and discharged
on August 15, 2022. Additionally, petitioner no. 3, the 61 year old mother-in-
law of the complainant, underwent a knee replacement surgery on May 2,
2022 at Health point Hospital and was hospitalised in critical condition from
May 10, 2022 to May 18, 2022. These facts were omitted in the complaint
lodged by the O.P. number 2 in order to suppress that under the aforesaid
circumstances, it was absolutely not possible for these two persons to
physically assault her. These facts abundantly makes it clear that the
complainant narrative as presented in her letter of complaint lacks of
semblance of truth and lodged with ulterior motive to harass the present
petitioners. It is further submitted that the charges are baseless and failed to
establish any wrongdoing under the specified sections and if the proceeding is
Page 3 of 16
allowed to continue against the petitioners being elderly and ailing family
members it would be sheer abuse of the process of court and hence liable to be
quashed.
4. In this regard he relied upon the decision of Achin Gupta versus State of
Haryana and others1, paragraph 17, 22-24, 29-30, 35, 36. Further relied
upon the decision of Ghanshyam Soni versus State (Government of NCT
Delhi)2, paragraph10-12, 19. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner
also relied upon the decision of Nitin Ahluwalia versus state of Punjab and
Anr.3 , paragraph 8, 12, 13, Swapan Kumar Das @ Swapan Das and Anr.
Versus State of West Bengal and Anr.4, page 12 onwards.
5. The learned Advocate representing the Opposite Party no. 2 on the other hand
argued that she was subjected to physical torture amounting to cruelty on
several occasions by her husband and in-laws, and it was primarily witnessed
by a security guard at her matrimonial house, which can be proved in course
of trial. The learned advocate relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Paranagouda and Anr. vs State of Karnataka5 where it was
observed that section 498A of the Indian Penal Code addresses the harassment
of a married woman by her husband, or his relatives, and in her complaint
letter, she clearly stated the situations faced by her during her stay at the
matrimonial house and there are sufficient ingredients to attract Section 498A
against the present petitioners.
1
2024 INSC 369
2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1301
3
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2013
4
CRR 2455 of 2018 (Calcutta High Court)
5
2023 INSC 933
Page 4 of 16
6. The learned Advocate further relied upon the the medical papers of IRIS
Hospital and USG of pregnancy, the complaint before the Deputy
commissioner of police on November 25, 2022 intimating that her husband is
a habitual drunker, and since after marriage, the opposite party demanded
₹10 lakhs from the father of the Opposite Party no. 2 and as such demand
could not be fulfilled, the Opposite Party no. 2 was inflicted with torture upon
her to pressurised her, not only to bring articles from our parent’s house, but
also pressurised her to abort her child and she conceived at that time. She
further stated on affidavit that the petitioners also started assaulted her belly
aiming to her lower abdomen in order to cause harm to her child.
7. Additionally though the first complaint was lodged on September 11, 2022 by
the husband and on September 19, 2022 by mother-in-law the husband filed
the case for restitution of conjugal right petition on September 19, 2022 which
was dismissed for default and no allegation of torture was mentioned against
her by the parents in law. The decree of divorce was passed on May 8, 2025 on
the ground of cruelty. It is further argued that if there are inconsistence is that
should be taken before the trial court and to be tested in course of trial.
8. The prosecution on the other hand argued that the number of complaints
lodged against each other by the parties prima facie shows the marital discord
in the family and enough materials are found in course of investigation against
the present petitioners to establish that torture was inflicted upon the
Opposite Party no. 2, which compelled her to lodge the complaint within few
months from the marriage. It is further submitted that since after
investigation, the charge sheet has been filed and from the statement recorded
certain incriminating materials are found against the present petitioners they
Page 5 of 16
must face the trial and, the entire proceedings should not be quashed.
Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of this revision application. In this regard
he relied upon the decision of the High Court of Delhi in CRL.M.C. 4852 of
2025 in Atharva Chaudhary & Anr. versus The State of NCT of Delhi &
Ors.
Analysis
9. Heard the submissions of the learned Senior Advocate representing the
petitioner and the Learned Public Prosecutor. In the case of Achin Gupta
(Supra) as relied upon on behalf of the petitioner, the complaint was lodged
against the husband and in-laws, sister-in-law, brother-in-law with the
allegation of demand of dowry since after marriage and thereby caused mental
and physical trauma to the informant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed
the power to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C taking
reference to the settled law in State of Haryana versus Bhajanlal,6, Where it
was held that 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, such power can be invoked. Further Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Niharika Infrastructure Private Limited versus State of
Maharashtra7 has held that quashing of FIR is an exception rather than an
ordinary rule and the High Court should exercise the powers under section 482
Cr.P.C sparingly with circumspection.
6
(1992) supp (1) SCC 335
7
2021 SCC OnLine SC 315
Page 6 of 16
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further took note of the decision of Mahmood
Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P & Ors.,8 where the legal principles applicable
apropos Section 482 of the Cr.P.C was examined and it was observed that:
“when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking
either the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC or the
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings
quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings
are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the
ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such
circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the
FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further
observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look
into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the
purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients
to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in
frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the court owes a duty
to look into many other attending circumstances emerging
from the record of the case over and above the averments
and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try
and read between the lines”.
11. In the case of Ghanshyam Soni (Supra) the observation of the Hon’ble Apex
Court was that:
“It is, thus, clear that though Section 468 of the Code
mandates that ‘cognizance’ ought to be taken within the
specified period from the commission of offence, by
invoking the principles of purposive construction, this Court
ruled that a complainant should not be put to prejudice, if
for reasons beyond the control of the prosecuting agency or8
2023 SCC OnLine SC 950Page 7 of 16
the complainant, the cognizance was taken after the period
of limitation. It was observed by the Constitution Bench
that if the filing of the complaint or initiation of proceedings
was within the prescribed period from the date of
commission of an offence, the Court would be entitled to
take cognizance even after the prescribed period was
over.”
12. In the case of Nitin Ahluwalia versus State of Punjab & Anr. (Supra)
taking note of the decision of Jayedeepsinh pravinsinh Chavda vs State of
Gujarat , it was observed thus:
“11. From the above understanding of the
provision, it is evident that, ‘cruelty’ simpliciter is
not enough to constitute the offence, rather it must
be done either with the intention to cause grave
injury or to drive her to commit suicide or with
intention to coercing her or her relatives to meet
unlawful demands.”
In the present case, the complaint was lodged on September 19, 2022, before
the Officer-in-Charge, Jadavpur Police Station, by the mother-in-law being the
petitioner no. 2 herein intimating the continuous mental torture and trauma
by reckless, rude behaviour which forced her and her husband to leave under
constant trauma, tension and apprehension by her daughter-in-law who was
married only on 6th of March 2022.
13. In the said complaint, she further mentioned about the cardiac surgery
undergone of her husband and the orthopaedic surgery of her, and both of
them were under need of medical care and were passing a stage to recover
from post-operative hazard. On September 5, 2022, the mother-in-law
Page 8 of 16
intimated the Jadavpur P.S. about the mental torture inflicted on her and her
husband by the daughter-in-law who got married with her son very recently.
The complaint for the revealed about the threatening given to them by the
daughter-in-law. On September 11, 2022, the husband of the opposite party
no 2 lodged a complaint before the Jadavpur P.S. against her, which reveals
that previously, a general diary was lodged against her wife and a decision was
taken by the duty officer not to disturb each other, and despite that on that
day, the parents, brother, aunt along with his wife came in front of his house
and abused them with filthy languages, entered into the room and took all her
belongings, including the jewellers. A complaint was also lodged by the mother
in-law before the chairperson National Commission for women on September
21, 2022 intimating, exceptional mental torture, trauma by daughter-in-law
towards her in-laws who also used to filthy words and showed aggressive
behaviour and attempted to cause serious injury on her forehead. Similarly the
father-in-law also made representation before the same authority on the same
date. The documents annexed with the revisional application are the medical
papers of Rabindranath Tagore Hospital, which primarily shows that the
patient that is the father-in-law was admitted on August 3, 2022 and was
discharged on 15 August 2022. The medical papers in respect of the mother-
in-law are dated April 20, 2022, which also reveals about the knee surgery.
14. The instant complaint was lodged by the daughter-in-law on November 25,
2022 against her husband and the present petitioners being the in-laws. The
allegation of torture have been levelled against the petitioners started since
after the date of Boubhat ceremony as well as they demanded more dowry
articles and cash amount when an amount of ₹1,00,000 was given towards the
Page 9 of 16
expenditure for boubhat ceremonies, other than beddings, tea, table, dressing
table, and other brass made utensils and household articles. Further demand
of ₹10 lakhs were also made by them as reflected from the said complaint. On
close scrutiny of the entire written complaint, it is apparent that an incident
mentioned at the starting of August, 2022 when she was kept in a dark room
by her husband without providing a drop of water and food, and she passed
her days in an unbearable suffocated situation and somehow with a hue and
cry she was allowed to come out from such room and then called her parents.
They tried to reconcile the matter, but refused to accept her request and her
brother lodged a written complaint on September 3, 2022. The instant
complaint further reveals that on several occasion request was made on behalf
of the Opposite Party no. 2 to the husband and other family members to
reconcile and on August 21, 2022, her husband aided by his parents
pressurised her for bringing more money and was inflicted with inhuman
physical torture, and then she was forced to take shelter at her paternal home.
15. Therefore, no specific allegations or overt acts are attributed to the present
petitioners, except general allegations of aiding and abetting their son in
allegedly pressurising the complainant to bring more money. No specific date,
year or particular incident has been described nor has the manner in which
she was inflicted with severe physical torture. On the contrary, it appears from
the record that several complaints were lodged before the various authorities
by the petitioners as well as the husband against the opposite party no 2,
which prima facie suggests that the present complaint has been instituted as a
counterblasts to those earlier complaints. Furthermore the medical documents
on record reveals that the petitioner had undergone surgeries, as noted
Page 10 of 16
hereinabove, and were consequently incapacitated for a considerable period .In
such circumstances it is highly improbable and beyond reasonable
imagination that they would have physically assaulted their daughter in law
during that period .The articles were received by the opposite party no. 2,
which can also be found from the document, annexed with the affidavit in
reply. The learned Advocate representing the opposite party only relied upon
the statement of the security guard of the said premises recorded in course of
investigation, which manifest the turmoil prevailing between the daughter-in-
law and the husband and in-laws but that is also silent about any specific act
of torture inflicted by them.
16. In the case of Achin Gupta (Supra) it was held that:
“Section 482 of the Cr.P.C does not confer any
new power on the High Court but only saves the
inherent power, which the court possessed
before the enactment of the Criminal Procedure
Code. There are three circumstances under
which the inherent jurisdiction may be
exercised, namely i) to give effect to an order
under the code ii) to prevent abuse of the process
of court, and iii) to otherwise secure the ends of
justice”.
17. It was further held that-
“Once the investigation is over and charge sheet
is filed, the FIR pales into insignificance. The
court, thereafter, owes a 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 Cr.PC, whichPage 11 of 16
restricts 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 a charge sheet.”
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in this case took note of the decision of Geeta
Mehrotra & Anr. versus State of U.P9, and the court observed:
“19. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of
the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no
allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji
Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have
been included in the FIR but mere 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 the domestic quarrel, taking place in a
matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the
wedding.’
20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt
observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao
v. L.H.V. Prasad reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein
also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the
High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out
of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had
been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was
quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein
9
(2012) 10 SCC 741
Page 12 of 16
with which we entirely agree that: “there has been an
outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage
is a sacred ceremony, 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 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 reasons which need not be mentioned here for
not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties
may ponder over their defaults and terminate the 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.”
19. In the case of Ghanshyam Soni (Supra) the accusations made of inflicting
mental and physical cruelty upon the complainant for bringing insufficient
dowry. The complainant referred few instances of such atrocities, however, the
allegations were found generic and rather ambiguous which were described as
merely accusatory and contentious in nature, and do not elaborate a concrete
picture of what may have transpired. It was held that for those reason alone,
the evidence on record clearly inconsistent with the accusations, the version of
the complainant seems in plausible and unreliable. In this regard, the decision
of K. Shubba Rao versus State of Telangana10 represented by its Secretary,
Department of home was taken note of where it was held,
10
(2018) 14 SCC 452
Page 13 of 16
‘6. The courts should be careful in proceeding
against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining
to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The
relatives of the husband should not be roped in
on the basis of omnibus allegations, unless
specific instances of their involvement in the
crime are made out’
20. Since the charge sheet was submitted under section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code the provision itself is to be looked into which reads
as follows;
“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 may extend to three years and shall
also be liable to fine.
Explanation.– For the purpose of this section,
“cruelty” means–
(a)any wilful 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.”
Page 14 of 16
In the present case excepting a vague and omnibus allegation of pressurising
her son to ask for more money from her no other incident could be found to
attract the provision under Section 498A.
So far the charges under Section 406 of the IPC is concerned primarily she
took all her belonging by issuing a zimmanama and no specific allegation of
keeping the articles by the petitioners are canvassed .The charge under section
506 IPC relating to criminal intimidation but the nature of allegation levelled
against them dose not attract any ingredients to constitute such offence as the
complaint is absolutely silent about any threat to that extent with intention to
cause harm to the complainant. Even mere expression of any word without
any intention to cause alarm is not sufficient to attract this provision as
materials are to be shown to establish that.
Conclusion
21. It is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the ultimate object of justice
is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent and the
said task is herculean task and the allegations are to be scrutinized with great
care and circumspection. In this case after threadbare consideration of the
entire materials and the discussions made and the law laid down in this
regard and considering the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
State of Haryana versus Bhajanlal (Supra) this court is of the considered
view that the instant criminal proceedings initiated by the defacto complainant
against the present petitioners being the father-in-law and mother-in-law has
failed to disclose any such ingredient, which prima facie constitute an offence
Page 15 of 16
against them as alleged, and therefore to allow the same to continue would be
sheer abuse of the process of the court and hence is liable to be quashed.
22. Hence this C.R.R stands allowed .The entire proceeding pending before the
learned Magistrate is hereby quashed qua the petitioners.
23. No order as to costs.
24. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously
after complying with all necessary legal formalities.
(CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.)
Page 16 of 16