The Calcutta High Court quashed a second 498A and dowry case filed on the same matrimonial incident, holding it legally unsustainable. The Court warned that repetitive complaints with vague allegations amount to misuse of criminal law and harassment of the husband and his family.
KOLKATA: The Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das, delivered a judgment addressing misuse of criminal law in matrimonial disputes. The Court quashed criminal proceedings filed under Sections 498A, 323, 307, 313, 406 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act after finding that the case was based on duplicate complaints, vague accusations, and clear procedural violations.
The case arose from a long relationship of nearly 12 years between the woman and the man, which later resulted in a temple marriage. Soon after the marriage, disputes began. The woman alleged cruelty, assault, attempt to murder, dowry harassment, and even an attempt to burn her alive.
Based on these allegations, one complaint was filed at Sagar Police Station, and later another complaint was filed before a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC for the very same incident and date.
The High Court noted that filing two criminal complaints for the same alleged incident is not permissible in law. It observed that the second complaint did not even disclose that an earlier FIR had already been registered. The Court found no reasonable explanation as to why two separate complaints were filed at different places within a short time for the same occurrence.
On examining the case diary and materials collected during investigation, the Court found that there was no concrete evidence supporting the serious allegations such as pouring kerosene or banging the complainant’s head against a wall.
There were no medical records or earlier complaints despite the claim of extreme brutality. The allegations were found to be vague and general.
There were no specific dates, times, or supporting materials for serious accusations like attempt to murder and forceful abortion. The Court also noted contradictions between the complaint, the statement under Section 164 CrPC, and the charge sheet.
The High Court relied on settled Supreme Court law regarding misuse of criminal process in matrimonial disputes and quoted important principles on how courts must act with caution.
The Court reiterated the settled position on inherent powers and observed:
“Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C is very wide have to be exercised, sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specified down in the section itself.”
Emphasising the real purpose of criminal justice, the Court stated:
“Ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and to protect the innocent.”
The judgment also acknowledged the growing problem of dragging entire families into criminal cases without evidence, noting:
“The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon.”
Referring to Supreme Court guidance on matrimonial disputes, the Court further quoted:
“Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration.”
The High Court clearly stated that where complaints are found to be vexatious and frivolous, courts are duty-bound to look beyond mere allegations.
In this case, the Court found no material to support the charges and noted that mandatory legal requirements under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC were not followed before approaching the Magistrate.
In this case, the Court found no material to support the charges and noted that mandatory legal requirements under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC were not followed before approaching the Magistrate.
This judgment once again reinforces that criminal law cannot be used as a tool of pressure in matrimonial disputes and that courts will step in where the process of law is misused.
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | How Applied in This Case |
| Section 498A IPC | Cruelty by husband or relatives | Allegations vague, omnibus, no material proof |
| Section 323 IPC | Voluntarily causing hurt | No medical or independent evidence |
| Section 307 IPC | Attempt to murder | Serious allegation unsupported by case diary |
| Section 313 IPC | Causing miscarriage without consent | Contradictory versions, no consistency |
| Section 406 IPC | Criminal breach of trust | No proof of entrustment or misappropriation |
| Section 34 IPC | Common intention | Used mechanically without specific acts |
| Sections 3/4 DP Act | Dowry demand and acceptance | No concrete evidence of dowry demand |
| Section 156(3) CrPC | Magistrate’s power to order investigation | Mandatory pre-conditions violated |
| Sections 154(1) & 154(3) CrPC | FIR procedure before Magistrate approach | Non-compliance noted by Court |
| Section 482 CrPC | Inherent powers of High Court | Invoked to prevent abuse of process |
Case Details
- Case Title: Asish Bera & Ors. vs The State of West Bengal & Anr., CRR 476 of 2023
- Court: Calcutta High Court
- Bench: Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das
- Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-AS:134
- Date of Judgment : 30 January 2026
- Counsels:
- For Petitioners: Mr. Swapan Kumar Mallick, Advocate, and Ms. Sudeshna Das, Advocate
- For State: Mr. Debasish Roy, Learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Imran Ali, Advocate, and Ms. Debjani Sahu, Advocate
- For Respondent No. 2 (Wife): Mr. Sibaji Kumar Das, Advocate, Mr. Dipendu Sarkar, Advocate, and Ms. Deblina De, Advocate
Key Takeaways
- Two FIRs for the same incident is clear misuse of criminal law and courts will not allow harassment through duplicate complaints.
- Vague and omnibus allegations under 498A IPC and dowry laws, without dates, evidence, or consistency, cannot survive judicial scrutiny.
- Dragging the entire husband’s family into criminal cases without specific roles is legally unsustainable and repeatedly condemned by courts.
- Serious charges like attempt to murder or forced abortion must be backed by medical and documentary proof, not emotional narratives.
- Criminal law exists to punish genuine offenders, not to be used as a weapon in marital disputes or as leverage for control or revenge.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.