Living Separately In Same City Not 'Domestic Proximity': Calcutta High Court Quashes Cruelty Case Against Sister-In-Law & Her Husband

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.

“Geographical proximity within a metropolitan city cannot be equated with domestic integration,” the Court held.

The Court was dealing with a revision petition filed by Moniza Farooquee and her husband Sharik Hossain seeking quashing of proceedings arising out of a dowry harassment FIR lodged by the wife of Moniza's brother.

According to the complainant, her marriage was solemnized in October 2022 and disputes arose within two months over an alleged demand of ₹3 lakh for the husband's business. She left the matrimonial home in April 2023 and lodged the FIR in October 2023 under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The petitioners contended that they had been living independently in Tangra since their marriage in 2014, nearly eight years before the complainant's marriage, and had no role in the matrimonial dispute. They argued that the allegations against them were entirely vague and unsupported by any specific overt acts.

Accepting the contention, the Court found that the FIR and statements under Section 161 CrPC contained only a “singular, nebulous allegation” that the petitioners “instigated” the husband to torture the complainant, without mentioning any dates, incidents, or specific acts.

Relying on Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand and Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court held that allegations against relatives living separately require careful scrutiny and cannot proceed on generalized assertions.

The Court also found the allegation that the petitioners visited the matrimonial home “almost every day” to be inherently improbable, noting that the husband of the petitioner was employed as a Senior Associate at PwC and the couple had their own settled family life with two minor children.

“The allegation of 'daily' interference is not only evidentially weak but logically implausible,” the Court observed.

On the charge under Section 406 IPC relating to Stridhan, the Court noted that the complainant herself had stated that all her gold ornaments were kept in the custody of her father-in-law. No recovery was made from the petitioners' residence.

Holding that the essential ingredient of “entrustment” was absent, the Court said:

“One cannot 'misappropriate' that which one never 'possessed'.”

The Court further held that there was no material to establish any “prior meeting of minds” or common intention under Section 34 IPC between the petitioners and the husband.

It also took note of the six-month delay in lodging the FIR after the complainant left the matrimonial home and termed it a “diagnostic indicator of legal brainstorming” aimed at widening the net of accused persons.

Relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, the Court held that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to a manifest abuse of process.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the proceedings and charge sheet against the sister-in-law and her husband while directing that the trial continue against the husband and parents-in-law uninfluenced by its observations.

Case Title: Moniza Farooquee & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Case No.: CRR 619 of 2025

Click here to read order