The Calcutta High Court quashed a wife’s criminal case under Section 498A IPC and other laws, ruling that expecting an educated, earning wife to contribute to household expenses or pay EMIs is not cruelty. Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held that vague and unspecific allegations cannot justify prosecution.
WEST BENGAL: The Calcutta High Court, in Dr. Hiralal Konar & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., quashed criminal proceedings filed by a wife against her husband and father-in-law under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC, the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Juvenile Justice Act, and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, deciding Criminal Revision No. 2329 of 2022 on 3 September 2025, observed that the allegations were vague, uncorroborated, and based largely on ordinary incidents of domestic life.
Complaint and Allegations
The complainant-wife alleged that her husband, a geologist, and her in-laws, including her father-in-law Dr. Hiralal Konar, subjected her to physical, verbal, sexual, and economic abuse. She claimed humiliation for being from a lower caste and alleged that the family demanded dowry and forced her to pay the monthly EMI for a jointly purchased flat.
She further accused her husband of assaulting and strangling her and of beating their child. However, she produced no injury or medical reports to support these charges.
The husband and father-in-law maintained that the charges were “false, fabricated, and meant to harass” educated government employees, urging that the allegations were “vague and omnibus in nature” and lacked the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Gupta noted that the wife’s complaint lacked specific dates, times, and locations for most allegations. Only two incidents—one in 2017 and another in 2020—had approximate dates, but even those were unsupported by medical or documentary evidence.
The Court found that independent witnesses, including a neighbour, “categorically deposed that though the petitioners and opposite party no. 2 resided on the 3rd floor, he had neither heard any quarrel nor witnessed any assault.”
The judge emphasised that both spouses were educated and working professionals who had been in a long love relationship before marriage. Hence, portraying the husband as cruel and dominating from the start of marriage “cannot easily commend acceptance to a prudent mind.”
He also underlined that for nearly 11 years—from 2011 to 2022—no complaint had been filed despite the wife’s claim of long-term cruelty.
Key Observation
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta made the crucial observation that:
“The opposite party no. 2 is an educated and earning woman, and the routine expectations of contributing towards household expenses, making online purchases during the Covid-19 lockdown, or being asked to feed the child by the mother-in-law, cannot, by any stretch, constitute ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. Likewise, payment of EMIs for a jointly acquired apartment, or the father taking the child outside, are not unusual incidents of domestic life. Where no specific role is attributed to any accused, and allegations lack particulars as to date, time, or manner of commission of offence, continuation of criminal proceedings would operate as prejudice and oppression against the accused.”
Supreme Court Precedent
The Court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr. (2025 3 SCC 735), quoting:
“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.”
and further,
“In recent years, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498-A 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 scrutinised, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm-twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family.”
On SC/ST Allegations
The Court observed that the alleged caste-based insults did not occur in public view, which is an essential requirement under Section 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST Act.
“The alleged incident of insult and humiliation by saying she belongs to lower caste, as described, did not occur in public view or in a public place; therefore, it does not attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(u) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.”
It relied on Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020 10 SCC 710) and Sudhakar v. State (2018 5 SCC 435) to reinforce that an insult must occur “in public view” to attract the provision.
Legal Principles Reaffirmed
The High Court reiterated the guiding criminal-law principle that:
“It is better that a hundred guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”
and stressed that without credible, specific evidence, “fixing criminal liability becomes wholly unsustainable.”
Referring to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604), the Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent “abuse of the process of law.”
Final Order
Justice Gupta concluded:
“The continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law… Consequently, the proceedings in Special Case No. 9/2022 arising out of Patuli P.S. Case No. 52/2022… are hereby quashed and all orders passed therein are set aside insofar as the present petitioners are concerned.”
The Calcutta High Court reaffirmed that mere domestic disagreements or sharing of financial responsibility cannot be branded as “cruelty.” When allegations lack dates, evidence, or specific acts, courts must protect individuals from misuse of criminal law — a vital reminder that justice should not be driven by emotion, but by evidence and fairness.
Explanatory Table of Laws and Sections
| Law / Act | Section(s) | Provision Summary | Court’s Finding / Application in This Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) | Section 498A | Cruelty by husband or his relatives against wife — physical or mental harassment for dowry or severe cruelty. | Court held that normal domestic expectations (like contributing to expenses or paying EMIs) do not amount to cruelty. Allegations were vague and lacked evidence. |
| Section 406 | Criminal breach of trust — dishonest misappropriation of property entrusted. | Not applicable, as all articles were seized from the residence; no proof of misappropriation. | |
| Section 506 | Criminal intimidation (threats). | No credible averment; section not attracted. | |
| Section 34 | Common intention among accused. | Lacked proof of shared criminal intention; not sustained. | |
| Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 | Sections 3 & 4 | Section 3: Penalty for giving/taking dowry; Section 4: Penalty for demanding dowry. | No concrete evidence of dowry demand; mere allegations were insufficient. |
| Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 | Section 75 | Punishment for cruelty to child. | Unsubstantiated; no medical or psychological evidence supporting child abuse. |
| Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 | Section 3(1)(u) | Punishes insult or intimidation of a person belonging to SC/ST in public view. | Court held alleged caste remarks were made inside home, not in public view; section inapplicable. |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) | Sections 401 & 482 | Section 401 – High Court’s revisional powers; Section 482 – inherent power to prevent abuse of law and secure justice. | Invoked by petitioners; Court used Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings as abuse of process. |
| Special Marriage Act, 1954 | Section 27(1)(a)/(b) | Grounds for divorce (pending matrimonial dispute). | Mentioned as related pending proceeding; no bearing on this case’s outcome. |
Case Summary
- Case Title: Dr. Hiralal Konar & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
- Case Number: C.R.R. 2329 of 2022
- Court: High Court at Calcutta – Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction (Appellate Side)
- Bench: Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
- Date of Hearing: 08 August 2025
- Date of Judgment: 03 September 2025
- For the Petitioners: Mr. Sekhar Basu, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Soubhik Mitter, Adv.; Ms. Rajnandini Das, Adv.; Mr. Karan Bapuli, Adv.
- For the Opposite Party No. 2 (Wife): Mr. Sujoy Sarkar, Adv.; Mr. Prasun Mukherjee, Adv.; Mr. Kanchan Roy, Adv.
- For the State: Ms. Anasuya Sinha, Adv.; Ms. Rajashree Tah, Adv.
- Petition Filed Under: Sections 401 & 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Police Case Reference: Patuli P.S. Case No. 52/2022 dated 15.03.2022
- Trial Court Reference: Special Case No. 9/2022, pending before District & Sessions Judge, Alipore, South 24 Parganas
- Result: Proceedings quashed; all orders against petitioners set aside.
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.