Can a wife invoke serious criminal provisions like Section 308 IPC against in-laws based on vague allegations and belated medical records?
The Calcutta High Court held she cannot—without specific overt acts and credible proximate injury evidence, an attempt-to-homicide charge is legally unsustainable.
KOLKATA: The Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das, delivered an important ruling granting partial relief to certain in-laws in a matrimonial criminal dispute.
The case originated from a complaint filed by the wife alleging cruelty, dowry demand, assault and administration of wrong medication by her husband and his family after marriage in 2015. The judgment dated 24 February 2026 examined whether all accused relatives should face trial under serious charges including Section 308 IPC.
The Court noted that marital discord began shortly after marriage, and the wife left the matrimonial home in March 2016. Divorce proceedings were later initiated by the husband, following which the wife lodged a criminal complaint against multiple family members alleging harassment, assault and forced medication. Police investigation resulted in a chargesheet under Sections 498A, 406, 325 and 308 IPC against the husband and several relatives.
The defence argued that the complaint was filed as a counterblast to divorce proceedings and contained vague allegations without specific roles attributed to many relatives. The prosecution, however, maintained that sufficient materials existed and that the truthfulness of evidence must be examined during trial.
While examining the scope of inherent powers under criminal procedure, the Court observed:
“It is no longer res integra that every High Court can exercise the inherent power to act ex debito Justitia that is to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent the abuse of the process of court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice.”
During analysis of medical records and complaint allegations, the Court found inconsistencies. The prescription relied upon did not support the claim of forced medication, and the certificate issued two years later appeared to be based mainly on narration rather than medical findings. The Court also observed that the complaint was filed after the initiation of matrimonial litigation and no earlier complaint was made before the authorities.
In its final findings, the Court observed, “Discharge is a valuable right provided to the accused.” After evaluating the material on record, the Court concluded that allegations against some relatives were omnibus and unsupported by evidence, while specific allegations against others required trial.
Accordingly, the Court discharged certain in-laws from the charge under Section 308 IPC due to lack of material, while refusing relief to remaining accused where allegations of assault were prima facie supported by medical records. The criminal revision was therefore partly allowed, granting limited relief while directing trial against others to proceed.
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | How Applied in This Case |
| Section 498A IPC | Penalises cruelty by husband or his relatives, including mental and physical harassment and dowry-related abuse | Wife alleged cruelty and harassment by husband and in-laws after marriage, leading to registration of criminal case |
| Section 406 IPC | Punishes criminal breach of trust involving misappropriation of entrusted property | Invoked based on allegations regarding dowry articles and valuables allegedly retained by husband’s family |
| Section 325 IPC | Punishes voluntarily causing grievous hurt | Applied due to allegations of physical assault causing serious injury to the complainant |
| Section 308 IPC | Deals with attempt to commit culpable homicide when acts are done with knowledge likely to cause death | Added after allegations that assault during pregnancy caused severe bleeding and risk to life; Court discharged some relatives due to lack of specific evidence |
| Section 34 IPC | Establishes joint liability when offence committed with common intention | Used to implicate multiple family members together in alleged acts of cruelty and assault |
| Section 227 CrPC | Allows discharge of accused where no sufficient ground exists for proceeding to trial | Petitioners sought discharge from charges; High Court granted relief to certain in-laws |
| Section 397 CrPC | Provides revisional jurisdiction to examine legality or correctness of lower court orders | Revision petition filed challenging trial court’s refusal to discharge accused |
| Section 401 CrPC | Confers powers on High Court to exercise revisional authority | Enabled High Court to reassess discharge order and grant partial relief |
| Section 482 CrPC | Grants inherent powers to High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice | Court relied on inherent powers to examine whether prosecution against certain relatives was justified and to discharge them where allegations were vague |
Case Details
- Case Title: Bharat Soni & Ors. vs Nandini Soni & Anr.
- Case Number: CRR 4013 of 2023
- Court: High Court at Calcutta, Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction (Appellate Side)
- Bench: Hon’ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das
- Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-AS:325
Dates:- Last Heard On: 24.12.2025
- Judgment Pronounced On: 24.02.2026
- Judgment Uploaded On: 24.02.2026
- Counsels:
- For Petitioners: Mr. Achin Jana, Advocate, Ms. Gargi Dhang, Advocate, Mr. Prosenjit Ghosh, Advocate, and Ms. Chetna Rustagi, Advocate
- For Opposite Party No. 2: Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra, Advocate, Mr. Soumya Basu Roy Chowdhuri, Advocate, and Ms. Madhurai Sinha, Advocate
- For State: Mr. Debasish Roy, Learned Public Prosecutor, Ms. Rituparna De Ghose, Advocate, and Ms. Puja Goswami, Advocate
Key Takeaways
- Courts must not mechanically drag entire families into criminal trials without clear, specific and supported allegations against each individual.
- Vague and omnibus accusations in matrimonial disputes should not be enough to force elderly parents and distant relatives to face serious criminal charges.
- Discharge is a valuable legal safeguard, and High Courts must actively use their powers to prevent misuse of criminal law against innocent family members.
- Adding serious sections like attempt to culpable homicide without properly examining individual roles shows how easily harsh provisions can be stretched in matrimonial conflicts.
- Criminal prosecution in matrimonial disputes must be guided by evidence and individual accountability, not collective allegations.
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.