Relatives Can't Be Put To Trial On 'General Abuse' Claims Alone: Calcutta High Court Partly Quashes Matrimonial Cruelty Case U/S 498A IPC

The Calcutta High Court has partly quashed criminal proceedings in a matrimonial cruelty case, drawing a clear line between specific allegations against a spouse and vague, omnibus accusations against extended family members, and reiterating that courts must prevent the criminal process from being used for “wholesale implication” of relatives.

Justice Uday Kumar was hearing a petition under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) filed by Ashis Kumar Dutta, a practising advocate, and his brother Tapas Kumar Dutta, seeking quashing of proceedings under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act arising out of Bantra Police Station case in Howrah. The Court noted that the matter required balancing the statutory protection available to a woman alleging domestic cruelty with the need to shield in-laws from malicious or over-inclusive prosecution.

The marriage between the husband and the complainant-wife had subsisted for nearly twelve years, during which the couple had twin daughters. The dispute surfaced in March 2017 when the wife left the matrimonial home. She alleged sustained physical and mental cruelty linked to dowry demands and claimed that she was assaulted and forced out after her family failed to pay ₹1 lakh for the purchase of a car. She also accused the brother-in-law of drunken abuse and misappropriation of her stridhan. The husband, however, contended that she had voluntarily left the house and relied on a written “no-complaint” declaration allegedly signed by her father on the same day, besides filing a suit for restitution of conjugal rights.

After investigation, police filed a charge sheet against both the husband and the brother-in-law. The petitioners argued that the FIR was a retaliatory “counter-blast” to the husband's matrimonial proceedings and that the allegations against the brother-in-law were general and inherently improbable. The State opposed quashing, contending that once a charge sheet was filed, disputed factual issues—including the genuineness of the “no-complaint” letter—must be tested at trial.

Examining the material on record, the High Court referred to the caution expressed by the Supreme Court of India in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar against the growing tendency to rope in all family members in matrimonial disputes through vague allegations. The Court observed that criminal liability must be “act-based” and not merely “status-based,” and that relatives cannot be forced to undergo trial in the absence of specific overt acts.

Applying this principle, the Court found that the allegations against the brother-in-law were “general and omnibus,” lacking dates, particulars, or distinct acts of cruelty. Continuing the proceedings against him would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the case against him was quashed and he was discharged.

However, the Court declined to extend the same relief to the husband. It noted that the complaint contained specific allegations of dowry demand and a dated incident of physical ouster. The “no-complaint” declaration relied upon by the husband was treated as a defence document whose authenticity and circumstances must be tested through evidence at trial. The High Court held that it could not conduct a “mini-trial” or weigh defence material at the threshold stage when specific accusations disclosed a prima facie case.

Holding that only over-implication warranted intervention, the Court partly allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings against the brother-in-law while directing the trial to continue against the husband in accordance with law.

Case: Ashis Kumar Dutta & Anr. -Vs- State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No: CRR 882 of 2022

Click here to read order