SUVADEEP PAUL AND ORS. vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR

1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)

CRR 4612 of 2024

SUVADEEP PAUL & ORS.
Vs.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.


For the Petitioners : Ms. Jhuma Sen, Adv.
Mr. Yuvaraj Chatterjee, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Narayana Mukhopadhyay, Adv.

Judgment reserved on : 11.08.2026
Judgment delivered on : 31.08.2026
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.:-
1. The revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of the
proceeding in A.C.G.R. Case no. 3534 of 2019 arising out of Jadavpur
Police Station Case no. 264 dated 31.07.2019 under Sections
498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, pending before the learned
st
Judicial Magistrate 1 Court at Alipore, South 24 Parganas.
2.
The petitioners herein are the husband, father in law and mother in law
of the de facto complainant/opposite party no.2.
3. It is the case of the de facto complainant that she was married to the
petitioner no.1 on 19.11.2010 and since her marriage she was subjected
to mental and emotional torture. It is further stated by the petitioner

2

no.1 that as the opposite party no.2 led an adulterous life, she deserted
petitioner no.1 on or about 31.05.2016. The petitioner no.1/husband
has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage before the learned District
Judge, Alipore, on 05.10.2018, on the ground of adultery and cruelty
being Matrimonial Suit no. 2895 of 2018. The present case has been
filed on 31.07.2019 i.e. after the application for dissolution of
marriage was filed. The de facto complainant in her written complaint
has alleged as follows:-
“It is hereby mentioned, that my parents had to sell their
house and land to arrange and meet the cost of the
wedding. Mrs. Sulekha Paul, was still displeased by the
weight of all the jewelleries given, as according to her it is of
no standard.
On several occasions both Mr, Pradip Paul and Mrs.
Sulekha Paul had been rude and insulting, about the things
given to me by my parents. I was constantly abused and
Mr. Suvadeep Paul had used filthy languages to insult me
and my parents.
During the years, I was not allowed to work or go out alone.
Even if I was at my parents house, on occasions that I got
delayed, they would be insulting, and made me apologies to
them, for being late. Before the wedding, I was under the
impression, that Mr. Suvadeep Paul took care of their

3

business, however, at a later stage, I was utterly shocked to
know that, he was completely out of job and had failed in
examinations, throughout his life. He had hidden all the
stuff before marriage.
Once on a New Year Party Mr. Suvadeep Paul, got utterly
drunk and tried to assault me physically. On a different
occasion, during a domestic argument, he pushed me so
hard, that I fell on the bed and underwent pain for the next
few days.
When, it all went beyond me, I had requested to let me
work, which they were not very happy about, later it
drove me away, and I separated from the house on
31st May, 2016, one day prior to my masters exam. Mrs.
Sulekha Paul had orchestred the fight to drive me away, so
that I fail in my exams. I had to leave without any
belongings, and all the afore mentioned stuff still lies with
them.
After I had separated, and independently started working,
Mr. Suvadeep Paul had hacked into my email accounts,
facebook accounts, Instagram accounts, to harass me and
mentally torture. It made me feel extremely insecure, as I
was always scared to fall asleep. He had several times
stalked me on internet and made my life a living hell. This

4

was all after I had separated, and requested them to give
my belongings back, including my Streedhan.
On several occasions we tried to claim my streedhan
articles and other belongings but Mr. Suvadeep Paul and
his parents refused to hand over my above mentioned
articles and other belongings and tried to bargain deals
with my stuff only.”
4. State has placed the case diary.
5. Section 498A of IPC, lays down:-
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty.— Whoever, being
the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,
subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “cruelty”
means—
(a)any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b)harassment of the woman where such harassment is
with a view to coercing her or any person related to her
to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such demand.
Ingredients of offence. - The essential ingredients of
the offence under sec. 498A are as follows:-
(1) A woman was married;

5

(2) She was subjected to cruelty;
(3) Such cruelty consisted in -
(i) any lawful conduct as was likely to drive such
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to her life, limb or health whether mental or
physical;
(ii) harm to such woman with a view to coercing her to
meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security
or on account of failure of such woman or any of her
relations to meet the lawful demand;
(iii) the woman was subjected to such cruelty by her
husband or any relation of her husband.”
6. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. vs State of Telangana & Anr.,
in Criminal Appeal No. ………… of 2024 (arising out of SLP
(Criminal) No. 16239 of 2024, decided on December 10, 2024, the
Supreme Court held:-
“ 15. An offence is punishable under Section
498A of the IPC when a husband or his relative
subjects a woman to cruelty, which may result in
imprisonment for a term extending up to three
years and a fine. The Explanation under Section
498A of the IPC defines “cruelty” for the purpose
of Section 498A of the IPC to mean any of the
acts mentioned in clauses (a) or (b). The first limb
of clause (a) of the Explanation of Section
498A of the IPC, states that “cruelty” means any
wilful conduct that is of such a nature as is likely
to drive the woman to commit suicide. The second
limb of clause (a) of the Explanation of Section
498A of the IPC, states that cruelty means any
wilful conduct that is of such a nature as to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman.
Further, clause (b) of the Explanation of Section
498A of the IPC states that cruelty would also
include harassment of the woman where such

6

harassment is to coerce her or any person related
to her to meet any unlawful demand for any
property or valuable security or is on account of
failure by her or any person related to her to meet
such demand.
16. Further, Section 3 of the Dowry Act deals
with penalty for giving or taking dowry. It states
that any person who engages in giving, taking, or
abetting the exchange of dowry, shall face a
punishment of imprisonment for a minimum of five
years and a fine of not less than fifteen thousand
rupees or the value of the dowry, whichever is
greater. Section 4 of the Dowry Act talks of
penalty for demanding dowry. It states that any
person demanding dowry directly or indirectly,
from the parents or other relatives or guardians of
a bride or bridegroom shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than six months, but which may extend to two
years and with fine which may extend to ten
thousand rupees.
18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the
allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague
and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant
No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6
instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not
provided any specific details or described any
particular instance of harassment. She has also
not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in
which the alleged harassment occurred.
Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise
allegations.
25. A mere reference to the names of family
members in a criminal case arising out of a
matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations
indicating their active involvement should be
nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact,
borne out of judicial experience, that there is often
a tendency to implicate all the members of the
husband’s family when domestic disputes arise
out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised
and sweeping accusations unsupported by
concrete evidence or particularised allegations

7

cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution.
Courts must exercise caution in such cases to
prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal
process and avoid unnecessary harassment of
innocent family members. In the present case,
appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the
family of appellant No.1 have been living in
different cities and have not resided in the
matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and
respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be
dragged into criminal prosecution and the same
would be an abuse of the process of the law in the
absence of specific allegations made against each
of them.
28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by
way of an amendment was intended to curb
cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and
his family, ensuring swift intervention by the
State. However, in recent years, as there have
been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes
across the country, accompanied by growing
discord and tension within the institution of
marriage, consequently, there has been a growing
tendency to misuse provisions like Section
498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal
vendetta against the husband and his family by a
wife. Making vague and generalised allegations
during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized,
will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an
encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by
a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is
taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against
the husband and his family in order to seek
compliance with the unreasonable demands of a
wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and
again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband
and his family in the absence of a clear prima
facie case against them.
29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any
woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what
has been contemplated under Section 498A of
the IPC should remain silent and forbear
herself from making a complaint or initiating any
criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of

8

our aforesaid observations but we should not
encourage a case like as in the present one,
where as a counterblast to the petition for
dissolution of marriage sought by the first
appellant-husband of the second respondent
herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the
IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of
the said provision is meant mainly for the
protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty
in the matrimonial home primarily due to an
unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security in the form of dowry. However,
sometimes it is misused as in the present case.
30. In the above context, this Court in G .V. Rao
vs. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 observed
as follows:
“12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial
disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred
ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable
the young couple to settle down in life and live
peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes
suddenly erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in commission of heinous
crimes in which elders of the family are also
involved with the result that those who could have
counselled and brought about rapprochement are
rendered helpless on their being arrayed as
accused in the criminal case. There are many
other reasons which need not be mentioned here
for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that
the parties may ponder over their defaults and
terminate their disputes amicably by mutual
agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of
law where it takes years and years to conclude
and in that process the parties lose their “young”
days in chasing their “cases” in different courts.”
31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs.
State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held
that the courts have to be extremely careful and
cautious in dealing with these complaints and
must take pragmatic realties into consideration
while dealing with matrimonial cases. The
allegations of harassment by the husband’s close

9

relatives who had been living in different cities
and never visited or rarely visited the place where
the complainant resided would have an entirely
different complexion. The allegations of the
complainant are required to be scrutinized with
great care and circumspection.
32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the
impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent
No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle
personal scores and grudges against appellant
No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2
to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls
within category (7) of illustrative parameters
highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High
Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising
the powers available to it under Section
482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of
the Court’s process by continuing the criminal
prosecution against the appellants.”
7. The materials in the case diary in the present case shows that the
allegations are general in nature. As such permitting the case to
proceed against the petitioners herein, will clearly be an abuse of
the process of law, considering that none of the ingredients
required to constitute the offences alleged are present against the
petitioners herein.
8. CRR 4612 of 2024 is thus allowed.
9. The proceeding in A.C.G.R. Case no. 3534 of 2019 arising out of
Jadavpur Police Station Case no. 264 dated 31.07.2019 under Section
498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, pending before the
st
learned Judicial Magistrate 1 Court at Alipore, South 24 Parganas, is
hereby quashed in respect of the petitioners namely Suvadeep
Paul, Pradip Kumar Paul and Sulekha Paul.

10

10. All connected applications, if any, stands disposed of.
11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
12. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary
compliance.
13. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal
formalities.



(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)