'Second Complaint On Same Matrimonial Incident Unsustainable, Abuse Of Process': Calcutta High Court Quashes S.498A IPC Case

Observing that a second criminal proceeding on the “self-same incident” with identical allegations cannot be sustained and would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the Calcutta High Court has quashed a dowry harassment and attempt to murder case instituted against a husband and his family members.

Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das held that once an earlier FIR had already been registered regarding the same occurrence, the de-facto complainant could not initiate another complaint before a different forum under Section 156(3) CrPC. The Court found material inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, omnibus and general allegations against the in-laws, and the absence of specific overt acts, concluding that continuation of the proceedings would be unjust.

Allowing the criminal revision, the Court observed that on a cumulative assessment of the facts, there was no sufficient material to justify trial and that permitting the case to continue would be an “absolute abuse of the process of law.”

Upon examining the records, the Court noted that two complaints were lodged concerning the same incident dated March 18, 2022 with substantially identical allegations. The second complaint did not disclose the existence of the earlier FIR and appeared to suppress that fact. The allegations against the in-laws were general and lacked specificity, while the case diary revealed no corroborative material supporting serious claims such as pouring kerosene or attempting to burn the complainant.

The Court further found inconsistencies in the complainant's statements under Section 164 CrPC, including contradictory versions regarding an alleged forceful abortion. It also held that the mandatory requirements under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC had not been complied with before invoking the Magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 156(3).

Relying on Supreme Court precedents in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, and Geeta Mehrotra v. State of UP, the Court reiterated that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly to prevent misuse of criminal law and that courts must be cautious in matrimonial disputes where entire families are often mechanically implicated. Quoting the settled principle, the Court stressed that inherent jurisdiction exists to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

In the background of the case, the complainant alleged that following a long relationship and a temple marriage with petitioner no. 1, she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty, assault, confinement, dowry demands, and attempts to burn her alive. An FIR was first registered at Sagar Police Station. Subsequently, she filed another complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Ranaghat court, which resulted in registration of Dhantala PS Case No. 229/2022 under Sections 498A/323/307/313/406/34 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused approached the High Court seeking quashing of the second proceeding on the ground that it was duplicative and mala fide.

Finding the second prosecution repetitive, unsupported by concrete material, and legally unsustainable, the Court held that allowing it to proceed would amount to harassment and misuse of the criminal process. Accordingly, the criminal revision was allowed, the proceedings pending before the Magistrate were quashed, and the case diary was directed to be returned.

Case Title: Asish Bera & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Case No.: CRR 476 of 2023

Click here to read order