Living Separately In Same City Not 'Domestic Proximity': Calcutta High Court Quashes Cruelty Case Against Sister-In-Law & Her HusbandCase Title: Moniza Farooquee & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 221The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a married sister-in-law and her husband in a dowry harassment case, holding that...
Case Title: Moniza Farooquee & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 221
The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a married sister-in-law and her husband in a dowry harassment case, holding that vague allegations of “instigation” against relatives living separately for over a decade cannot sustain prosecution under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.
Justice Uday Kumar observed that the tendency to “rope in” distantly residing relatives through omnibus allegations amounts to abuse of criminal process and warned that matrimonial litigation cannot be converted into a tool of harassment.
Case Title: Gautam Dey v. Golam Saharia
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 222
The Calcutta High Court has held that criminal liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is strictly personal to the drawer of the cheque and cannot be inherited by legal heirs or business associates after the drawer's death.
Justice Uday Kumar quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a man whose deceased brother had allegedly issued a cheque towards repayment of a ₹27 lakh loan.
Case Title: Md. Shams Biswas @ Tapan Biswas v. United Bank of India (now Punjab National Bank)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 223
The Calcutta High Court has set aside the premature retirement of a former Senior Manager of the erstwhile United Bank of India after taking note of his allegations that sustained caste-based discrimination at the workplace compelled him to renounce Hinduism and embrace Islam.
Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay observed that constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15 and 25 are “not ornamental declarations but enforceable mandates,” and stressed that no adverse administrative consequence can be predicated upon an individual's choice of faith.
Case Title: Shreya Basak & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 224
The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a woman and her father accused of abetting the suicide of her husband, observing that remarks questioning a man's “manhood” or refusal to continue a matrimonial relationship, by themselves, do not constitute abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC.
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held that there was no material showing any direct instigation, intentional aid, or positive act on the part of the accused which could have driven the deceased to take the extreme step.
Case Title: Manindra Nath Mishri v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 225
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of a man for murdering his wife by strangulation, holding that the medical evidence, “last seen” circumstances, and proof of a strained marital relationship arising out of the husband's alleged extramarital affairs formed a complete chain pointing to guilt.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay dismissed the appeal filed by Manindra Nath Mishri against his conviction under Sections 302 and 498A IPC in connection with the death of his wife at their matrimonial home in Haldia in June 2013.
Case Title: Arnab Dam v. The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 226
The Calcutta High Court has refused to suspend the sentence of alleged Maoist leader Arnab Dam, convicted in the 2010 Silda EFR camp attack case in which 24 security personnel were killed, observing that injured eyewitnesses are likely to remember the faces of attackers involved in “such a major terrorist attack.”
A Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray rejected Dam's plea for suspension of sentence pending appeal, noting the “exceptional gravity” of the offences and the prima facie incriminating evidence against him.
Calcutta High Court Upholds Misconduct Finding Against SAIL Employee For Encroaching On Company Land
Case Title: Debnath Swarnakar v. The Steel Authority of India & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 227
The Calcutta High Court has upheld disciplinary proceedings initiated against a Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) employee for unauthorized use and encroachment of company land, while partly granting relief by setting aside the punishment insofar as it imposed reduction of pay “with cumulative effect”.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen held that the employee's act of constructing a brick wall structure and fencing over SAIL land amounted to “misconduct” under the company's standing orders.
Case: Sirsanya Bandopadhyay Vs. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 228
The Calcutta High Court has issued interim directions to the State Police, asking them to ensure the safe return of persons who were allegedly displaced from their shops, homes or properties, regardless of political affiliation, in PILs against alleged post-poll violence in the wake of the 2026 West Bengal Assembly election results.
Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen held, "The police shall also ensure that if any citizen irrespective of his/her party affiliation, is illegally thrown out of his shop/house/property etc. due to post poll violence, he/she shall be given a safe return to his shop/house/property etc."
Case: Sahidul Laskar Vs. The General Manager, Eastern Railway & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 229
The Calcutta High Court has passed an interim order staying all proceedings pursuant to the impugned eviction notice issued in relation to the Brace Bridge railway station area until 20 May 2026 or until further orders. The writ petition was moved on behalf of nearly 6,000 slum dwellers residing in the locality adjacent to Brace Bridge Railway Station.
Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya held: "Whether the procedure prescribed under the relevant statute for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question has been followed or not, also has to be examined. Since an accommodation has been sought for by the learned advocate representing the respondent authorities, this Court is inclined to pass an interim order for a limited period. There shall be an order of stay of operation of the notice dated May 9, 2026 till May 20, 2026 or until further order whichever is earlier."
Case: Md Yasmin v State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 230
The Calcutta High Court on Thursday restrained further demolition of a Tiljala building where a fire in a leather goods manufacturing unit claimed two workers' lives earlier this week, while simultaneously prohibiting any business activity from the premises until further orders.
Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury passed the interim order in a writ petition filed by residents of the premises at Tiljala, who challenged the demolition drive initiated by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation following the May 12 fire incident.
Case Title: Goutam Saha & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 231
The Calcutta High Court has held that even after a criminal revision is finally disposed of, the High Court can invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to permit compounding of an offence where a subsequent change in circumstances creates a statutory right to compound the offence.
Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed that although courts ordinarily become functus officio after pronouncing final judgment, “the doctrine of functus officio will yield to justice for which law exists,” particularly where the offence becomes compoundable only after the High Court alters the conviction from a non-compoundable offence to a compoundable one.
Case Title: Deepak Kumar v. Airports Authority of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 232
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging cancellation of candidature in an Airports Authority of India recruitment process after the candidate failed to submit the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) certificate for the financial year specified in the recruitment notification.
Justice Amrita Sinha held that a recruiting authority cannot be compelled to accept documents contrary to the conditions prescribed in the recruitment notice and observed that “it is not open for a job aspirant to direct the recruiting authority for prescribing conditions for holding the recruitment process.”