KRISHNA KANTA DEY AND ANR. vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:-
HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.
CRR 4968 OF 2023
KRISHNA KANTA DEY & ANR.
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Pratip Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Biplab Majumder, Adv.
Mr. Ronit Chowbey, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Sagar Saha, Adv.
Mr. Saswata Chatterjee, Adv.
For the Opposite
Party No. 2 : Mr. Shibaji Kr. Das, Adv.
Mr. Dipendu Sarkar, Adv.
Ms. Maitrayee Das, Adv.
Last heard on : 07.09.2026
Judgement on : 07.09.2026
Uploaded on : 07.09.2026
Page 1 of 17

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.:-
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners being the parents in law of the
Opposite Party no. 2 for quashing of a complaint lodged against them by
their daughter-in-law. The petitioner no.1 is the owner of premises of G +1
story building, standing up on three cottahs of land at Kalyani. On the
strength of a complaint lodged against the present petitioners by the
opposite party no.2 under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code,1860 ,Kalyani Police Station vide FIR no. 575/2003 has been
initiated, and the petitioners had to surrender before the learned Court and
obtained bail on 12.9.2023. The instant petition has been filed seeking
quashing of the said proceedings pending before the learned Court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Court, Kalyani.
Brief fact of the case
2. In the month of December 2008, Opposite Party no. 2 got married with the
son of the petitioners, according to Hindu rights and customs and after
solemnisation of such marriage the Opposite Party no. 2 behaved cruelly
and in an indifferent manner while residing at the same premises of the
petitioners. The dispute and differences escalated from 2010 when Opposite
Party no. 2 and her husband moved out of the said premises and started
residing in a separate accommodation. Later on the petitioners came to
know about a criminal complaint lodged against them under section
498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code registered at the behest of the Opposite
Party no.2. The petitioners preferred an application under the provisions of
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and were enlarged on bail by

order dated June 25, 2012. The petitioners also prayed for quashing of the
said proceeding under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which
was disposed of by an order dated October 11, 2018 since a compromise
effected between the parties and the proceeding was quashed.
3. The present petitioners thereafter again threatened and coerced of
transferring his sweet and snacks business and the shop room as well as
the property in favour of their son and daughter-in-law and being constantly
humiliated in front of their neighbours and workers, they brought it to the
notice of jurisdictional Police Station by lodging complaints dated September
16, 2014, October 13, 2014 and December 3, 2014 respectively. On the
basis of the aforementioned complaints as lodged by the petitioners as well
as the neighbours the criminal cases being Kalyani P.S. case no. 570 of
2014 dated November 9, 2014, under Section 341/323/379/504/506 of
Indian penal Code, 1860 and Kalyani PS case no. 394 of 2015 dated June
20, 2015, under Section 341/323/379 of IPC were initiated by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalyani against the opposite party no.
2 and her husband. Those criminal cases were also dropped on the basis of
a compromise reached by between the parties.
4. The further case revealed that the son of the present petitioners despite
having sufficient earning, did not pay any maintenance to the present
petitioners and because of the continuous dispute and harassment the
petitioner no. 1 had to close down the showroom and discontinued
Page 3 of 17

his business from August, 2022. In the month of December 15, 2021, and
May 17, 2022, the petitioners were constrained to file applications before the
Chairman, Senior Citizens, Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Kalyani, Nadia praying for removal of their son and
daughter-in-law from the premises.
5. The petitioners were also constrained to file appropriate complaints dated
January 31, 2022 and May 17, 2022 before the appropriate authority,
seeking their assistance to evict their son and daughter-in- law, and a
proceeding to that extent was also started under the said Act. The summons
dated May 25, 2022 was issued in respect of the proceeding against their
son and daughter-in-law and on June 2, 2022 a reasoned order was passed
by the SDO in presence of the petitioners and their son and daughter-in-law
whereby they were directed to vacate the premises. A prayer was made on
their behalf to allow them to stay for few months since the opposite party
no. 2 was in her family away and it was recorded in the order. On November
4, 2022, the opposite party no. 2 gave birth to a male child, and after a few
months, the petitioners reminded the stipulations contained in the order
dated June 2, 2022 and requested them to vacate the said premises.
6. However, they did not pay any heed to the same and finding no alternative,
the petitioners had to move an application praying for implementation of the
said order which was allowed on July 31, 2023 and directed the
jurisdictional police to take appropriate steps. Since the jurisdictional police
failed to take any action vide an order dated September 19, 2023 directed

the jurisdictional police to evict the Opposite Party no. 2 and her husband
from the premises of the petitioner. By a letter dated September 20, 2023,
they were called by the jurisdictional police to take appropriate steps for
removing them. Shortly thereafter, the instant complaint was lodged against
the petitioners by the Opposite Party no 2. The petitioners had to surrender
before the learned Court and obtained bail. In addition to that, the petitioner
also found that their son has filed a Title Suit being TS no. 193 of 2023, the
summons of which was served upon them where prayer has been made for
declaration that he is a tenant under the petitioner no.1 in respect of the
said premises, but the learned Trial Court by an order dated September 29,
2023, refused to grant interim relief in his favour on the ground that he
failed to produce any document in support of his contention. In such
circumstances, the instant revisional application has been filed for
intervention by this court.
Submissions
7. The learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner argued that it is a
clear case where this court should exercise the power under Section 482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure since it is evident from the fact and
circumstances of the case that the complaint has been lodged with
absolutely mala fide intention, and in order to save themselves from the
order passed by the tribunal, where on their own assurance, they agreed to
vacate the premises of their father. It is further argued that the chequered
history of the case demonstrate that a continuous dispute between the
parties were very much in existence which resulted filing of complaints by
Page 5 of 17

the present petitioners against the daughter-in-law. The specific contention
of the petitioner is that the son and daughter-in-law are only interested to
the showroom as well as the premises depriving their other married sisters.
The petitioners had two daughters and one son and one of the daughter was
differently able has expired since long. Since when the son and daughter-in-
law are residing in their premises at the ground floor, the married daughter
and her husband are not allowed to enter into the premises and causing
severe mental distress to the present petitioners who are deprived of having
the company of their daughter.
8. The complaint being false and concocted and devoid of any instances of
torture as alleged therein to attract Section 498A of the Indian penal code
even if the entire complaint is accepted. It is further contended that during
pendency of this proceeding, the charge sheet has been submitted on
September 21, 2023 against the present petitioners where beside the
daughter-in-law and her husband and the police personnel, only two
witnesses have been cited. The Investigating officer while submitting the
charge sheet failed to assign any reason as to how the charge 498A/34IPC
were established on the basis of the materials collected. In this regard put
reliance on the decision of Sharif Ahmed and Another versus State of
1
Uttar Pradesh and Another where it was held that “ the Investigating
Officer must make clear and complete entries of all columns in the charge-
sheet so that the court can clearly understand which crime has been
committed by which accused and what is the material evidence available on
1 (2024) 14 SCC 122

the file. Statements under section 161 of the Code and related documents
have to be enclosed with the list of witnesses. The role played by the accused
in the crime should be separately and clearly mentioned in the charge-sheet,
for each of the accused person ”. Further relied upon a decision of Ria Das
2
vs State of West Bengal and Anr. passed by this Court in order to show
that the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure can be exercised while quashing of a criminal proceedings,
essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifest, frivolous, or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance.
9. Per Contra the learned Counsel representing the opposite party no.2
opposes the contention of the petitioners mostly on the ground that a
complaint under Section 498A was lodged against them by the Opposite
Party no.2 which ended in compromise. After that they again started
residing in the house and it is the petitioner no. 1 being the father of the
husband of Opposite Party no. 2 inducted them as a tenant at a monthly
tenant. It is further argued that on the basis of the complaint, the
investigation started and on completion of investigation, the charge sheet
was submitted, which prima facie establishes the charge against the
petitioners. It is further submitted that it is the constant view of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court that power of quashing of a complaint should be exercised
sparingly with circumspection, and while exercising this power, the Court
must believe the allegations in the complaint to be true and correct. It is
repeatedly held that save in exceptional cases where non-interference would
2 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 6298
Page 7 of 17

result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the Judicial process should
not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences. It is further argued that
the revisional application was filed for quashing of the FIR and the
parameters for exercising the inherent power of this court is different when
the charge sheet has been submitted. In this case relied upon Punit
3
Beriwala vs State of NCT of Delhi and Others . It is further contended
that in the decision of State of Odisha versus Pratima Mohanty and
4
Others it was held that as per settled proposition of law while examining an
FIR/complaint quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon
any enquiry as to reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the
FIR. This power should be an exception rather than any ordinary rule. The
Court cannot conduct mini trial and cannot go into the merits of the
allegations. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.
Therefore, when it is apparent that there was a history of lodging complaint,
alleging similar allegation against the petitioners by the Opposite Party no.
2, which ended only after a compromise was affected the subsequent
allegation against them by the same complainant must be weighed specially
when on completion of investigation the charge sheet has been submitted
and in the event, the proceeding is quashed at the threshold, the de facto
complainant will be highly prejudiced. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this
revisional application.
3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983
4 (2022) 16 SCC 703

10. The learned advocate representing state, submit the case diary and argued
that there are prima facie materials as collected by the investigating
authority during the court of investigation has established the charges
against the petitioners, and for that reason they must face the trial.Hence
prayed for dismissal of the revisional application .
Analysis
11. Heard the submissions. Perused the materials on record which prima facie
demonstrates a continuous and persistent family feud between the present
petitioners and their son and daughter- in-law since after the marriage in
the year 2008. The petitioners are the parents in law of the defacto
complainant. The record further reveals that previous complaint was lodged
by the daughter-in-law in the year 2012, under section 498A/406 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 which went up to filing of application under
Section 482 of the Code by the petitioners before the this High Court and it
was disposed of in the year 2018 on the basis of the compromise, arrived at
between the parties and the proceeding was quashed. Pursuant to the case
of the petitioners several complaints were lodged on behalf of the petitioners,
since thereafter as they were continuously threatened and humiliated and
assaulted by their son and daughter-in-law, compiling the petitioner no. 1 to
be admitted in hospital at Kalyani. The petitioners have annexed the
complaint lodged by them against their son and daughter-in-law which were
registered and proceedings were initiated by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kalyani against their son and daughter-in-law, but
those cases were also dropped on the basis of compromise reached between
Page 9 of 17

the parties and the petitioners made the prayer for not to proceed anymore
against their son as their son and his wife are doing well and behaving well
and residing peacefully and properly.
12. Admittedly, the property belongs to the petitioner and the husband of the
Opposite Party no.2 has filed a Title Suit against them, claiming to be a
tenant in respect of the portion occupied by them but failed to have any
interim order due to lack of materials. The instant complaint was lodged on
September 8, 2023, where reference is made in respect of the previous
complaint, but nowhere in the complaint can anything be found regarding
the proceeding filed by the petitioners under Act of 2007 and or the order
passed by the SDO, where in presence of both the parties, on the prayer
made by the Opposite Party no.2 and her husband, they were allowed to to
reside till the birth of the child since Opposite Party no.2 was in her family
way. Curiously the charge sheet as submitted in connection with this
complaint, also do not mention about the previous complaints lodged by the
petitioners against their son and daughter-in-law which ended in
compromise or about the order passed by SDO directing the jurisdictional
police qua the Kalyani Police Station to implement the order of eviction since
they did not comply. This Court fully agrees with the submission advanced
by the learned counsel of the Opposite Party no.2 regarding the parameters
to be followed by this court while exercising power under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, as those are the settled proposition of law. At
the same time, this court cannot be oblivious of the observations of the
Hon’ble Court that the court must not refrain from exercising the power

under Section 482, where there is gross miscarriage of justice or in order to
secure the ends of justice.
5
13. In the decision of Suman Mishra vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh the
Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering several judicial pronouncements
also took note of the decision of Iqbal alias Bala and Others vs State of
6
Uttar Pradesh and Others where it was held;
“ 9 ……..Whenever an accused comes before the court
invoking either the inherent powers under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or
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 for wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances the court
owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little
more closely.”
It was further held that in frivolous or vexatious proceeding, the court should
not restrict itself only to the stage of the case what is empowered to take into
the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case, as
well as the materials collected in course of investigation. In addition, it was
held that where “ multiple FIR have been registered over the period of time , it
is in the background of such circumstances, the registration of multiple FIR
importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private
or personal grudge as alleged” .
5 2025 INSC 203
6 (2023) 8 SCC 734
Page 11 of 17

14. Fact remains when this revisional application was filed, the prayer was
made for quashing the complaint. The charge sheet as can be found from the
case diary is dated September 21, 2023, when the instant revisional
application was affirmed on December, 2023. It is submitted before this
Court on behalf of the petitioners that they were not aware about filing of
charge sheet since it was not taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate.
They came to learn about the complaint when receive the notice under
Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C and voluntarily surrendered before the concerned
Court and prayed for bail on September 12, 2023. They have not yet received
the copies of the charge sheet or other materials in compliance of 207 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and hence could not produce the same before
the Court.
15. The case Diary is placed before the Court does not reflect that the
cognizance was taken by the concerned court after submission of charge
sheet. Be that as it may, the case diary reveals that the charge sheet has
been submitted and has been placed before this court. Therefore even
without going through charge sheet, this could therefore put reliance on the
complaint as lodged by the Opposite Party no.2 in order to ascertain whether
it discloses any prima facie offence as alleged or not. This Court also cannot
remain oblivious to the surrounding circumstances emerging from the
materials placed before it. It appears that the petitioners, who are the
parents in law of the Opposite Party no. 2, had earlier lodged a complaint
against her, which was not subsequently proceeded with. Likewise, the
complaint lodged by the Opposite Party no.2 against the petitioners in the

year 2012, ultimately came to an end on the basis of a compromise. The
history of the dispute placed before this Court further demonstrates that the
petitioner had initiated proceedings for maintenance and eviction before the
Sub-Divisional Officer under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents, Senior
Citizens Act, 2007. In the said proceeding, an order of eviction was passed,
and despite an assurance to vacate the press, the son and daughter-in-law
did not comply with the same. The said order was thereafter directed to be
implemented. It was only after the police informed the concerned persons
about the order and called upon them to vacate the premises, the instant
complaint came to be lodged.
16. The sequence of events, Prima facie gives rise to a reasonable inference
that the present complaint was instituted as a counterblast to the order of
eviction and with the view to protect protecting the opposite party no. 2 and
her husband from the consequence of such order. The allegation of the
petitioners that there was an attempt to appropriate or takeover the property
also find some corroboration from the subsequence, civil litigation, namely,
the title suit instituted by the son against his father, wearing the son had
claimed the status of a tenant in respect of the very premises belonging to
his father. In the circumstances, this court finds no justification in vomiting,
the criminal proceeding to continue merely on the ground that the complaint
had earlier been lodged by the opposite party no.2 in the year 2012, which
ultimately ended in a compromise. The mere existence of such an earlier
complaint, particularly in the backdrop of the subsequent developments and
the absence of specific allegations in the present complaint, by itself, furnish
Page 13 of 17

sufficient ground for allowing the present proceeding to continue,
notwithstanding the subsequent submission of the charge sheet.
17. The complaint is devoid of any details of date of torture inflicted on her
and the manner in which both the petitioners subjected her to such torture
or the nature of torture inflicted on her. Nothing has come out regarding the
incapability of the husband to maintain her and her children nor any
proceedings are pending against the husband.
18. The instant complaint has been lodged after the jurisdictional police called
them for the purpose of eviction, which glaringly manifest the mala fide
intention of the complainant to save their skin from their verbal assurance
given before the Tribunal constituted under Senior Citizens Act 2007 as
promulgated with a view to provide a speedy and inexpensive remedy to the
Senior citizen. The Tribunal constituted under Section 7, had the power to
conduct summary procedure for enquiry with all powers of Civil Court.
19. In a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar
7
@ Sonam vs The State Of Bihar the issue was whether allegations made
against the in-laws in the nature of general omnibus, allegation and
therefore liable to be quashed. It was observed therein that- “ incorporation of
section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a
woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state
intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial
litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater
disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more
7 2022 Live Law (SC) 141

than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions
such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the
husband and his relatives .”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the decision of several judicial
pronouncement, including Preeti Gupta and another versus State of
8
Jharkhand and another , Geeta Mehrotra, and Another versus State of
9
UP and another and held in paragraph 18,;
“18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this court has at numerous
instances expressed concern over the misuse of
section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of
implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial
disputes, without analysing the long term
ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as
the accused. It is further manifest from the said
judgments that false implication by way of general
omnibus allegations made in the course of
matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in
misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by
way of its judgments has warned the courts from
proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the
husband when no prima facie case is made out
against them.”
In the case of Ghanshyam Soni versus state (government of NCT of
10
Delhi) , the complaint was lodged under Section 498/406 and 34 IPC
against the in-laws and husband. it was held there in paragraph 11;
8 (2010) 7 SCC 667
9 (2012) 10 SCC 741
10 2025 INSC 803
Page 15 of 17

“11. As regards the Appellant ,the purportedly
specific allegation levelled against him are obscure
in nature. Even if the allegation and the case of the
prosecution is taken in at its face value, apart from
the bald allegations without any species of time,
date or place, there is no incriminating material
found by the prosecution or rather produced by the
complainant to substantiate the ingredients of
“cruelty” under section 498A IPC, as the recently
observed in the case of Jaydedeepsinh Pravinsinh
Chavda &Ors Vs State of Gujarat & Ors 2024
INSC 960 and Rajesh Chaddha vs State of
Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 671 . The complainant
has admittedly failed to produce any medical
records or injury reports, X-ray reports, or any
witnesses to substantiate her allegations. We cannot
ignore the fact that the complainant even withdraw
her second complaint dated 6.12.1999 six days
later on 12.12.1999. There is also no evidence to
substantiate the purported demand for dowry
allegedly made by the appellant or his family and
the investigative agencies in their own prudence
have not added section 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 to the charge sheet.”
Conclusion
20. Therefore, to sum up on consideration of the allegations made in the
written complaint, this Court find that the same failed to disclose the
necessary factual foundation or the essential ingredients so as to attract the
offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The
allegations against the present petitioners are general and omnibus in
nature. No specific date, time or place of occurrence has been mentioned.

There is no specific allegation also as to the nature of the alleged cruelty or
the torture, nor has any particular overt act been attributed to either of the
petitioners permitting such proceedings to continue on the basis of a
complaint of this nature, would, in the considered view of this court,
amount to an abuse of the process of law and hence is liable to be quashed.
21. Hence, this criminal revisional application stands allowed. The FIR
/complaint filed by the Opposite Party no.1 against the petitioners along
with the charge sheet and the proceeding pending before the learned ACJM,
Nadia stands quashed qua the petitioners.
22. They are discharged from their respective bail bond forthwith.
23. All other connected application, if any, hereby stand disposed of.
24. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to
the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
[CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.]
Page 17 of 17