Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta<\/strong>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Complaint and Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband and father-in-law maintained that the charges were \u201cfalse, fabricated, and meant to harass\u201d<\/strong> educated government employees, urging that the allegations were \u201cvague and omnibus in nature\u201d<\/strong> and lacked the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Court\u2019s Analysis<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Gupta noted that the wife\u2019s complaint lacked specific dates, times, and locations for most allegations. Only two incidents\u2014one in 2017 and another in 2020\u2014had approximate dates, but even those were unsupported by medical or documentary evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court found that independent witnesses, including a neighbour, \u201ccategorically 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.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201ccannot easily commend acceptance to a prudent mind.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n He also underlined that for nearly 11 years\u2014from 2011 to 2022\u2014no complaint had been filed despite the wife\u2019s claim of long-term cruelty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Key Observation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta made the crucial observation that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe 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 \u2018cruelty\u2019 within the meaning of Section 498A IPC<\/a>. 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.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Supreme Court Precedent<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr. (2025 3 SCC 735), quoting:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cA 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.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n and further,<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIn 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.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n On SC\/ST Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201cin public view\u201d<\/strong> to attract the provision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Legal Principles Reaffirmed<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court reiterated the guiding criminal-law principle that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt is better that a hundred guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n and stressed that without credible, specific evidence, \u201cfixing criminal liability becomes wholly unsustainable.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Referring to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604), the Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent \u201cabuse of the process of law.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Final Order<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Gupta concluded:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law\u2026 Consequently, the proceedings in Special Case No. 9\/2022 arising out of Patuli P.S. Case No. 52\/2022\u2026 are hereby quashed and all orders passed therein are set aside insofar as the present petitioners are concerned.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Calcutta High Court reaffirmed that mere domestic disagreements or sharing of financial responsibility cannot be branded as \u201ccruelty.\u201d When allegations lack dates, evidence, or specific acts, courts must protect individuals from misuse of criminal law \u2014 a vital reminder that justice should not be driven by emotion, but by evidence and fairness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Explanatory Table of Laws and Sections<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Case Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
![\"Calcutta](\"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Calcutta-High-Court-1-1024x576.webp\" "\\"\\"")
\n
Law \/ Act<\/th> Section(s)<\/th> Provision Summary<\/th> Court\u2019s Finding \/ Application in This Case<\/th><\/tr><\/thead> Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)<\/strong><\/td> Section 498A<\/strong><\/td> Cruelty by husband or his relatives against wife \u2014 physical or mental harassment for dowry or severe cruelty.<\/td> Court held that normal domestic expectations (like contributing to expenses or paying EMIs) do not amount to cruelty<\/strong>. Allegations were vague and lacked evidence.<\/td><\/tr> <\/td> Section 406<\/strong><\/td> Criminal breach of trust \u2014 dishonest misappropriation of property entrusted.<\/td> Not applicable, as all articles were seized from the residence; no proof of misappropriation<\/strong>.<\/td><\/tr> <\/td> Section 506<\/strong><\/td> Criminal intimidation (threats).<\/td> No credible averment; section not attracted<\/strong>.<\/td><\/tr> <\/td> Section 34<\/strong><\/td> Common intention among accused.<\/td> Lacked proof of shared criminal intention; not sustained<\/strong>.<\/td><\/tr> Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Sections 3 & 4<\/strong><\/td> Section 3: Penalty for giving\/taking dowry; Section 4: Penalty for demanding dowry.<\/td> No concrete evidence of
dowry demand; mere allegations were insufficient.<\/td><\/tr>Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015<\/strong><\/td> Section 75<\/strong><\/td> Punishment for cruelty to child.<\/td> Unsubstantiated<\/strong>; no medical or psychological evidence supporting child abuse.<\/td><\/tr> Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989<\/strong><\/td> Section 3(1)(u)<\/strong><\/td> Punishes insult or intimidation of a person belonging to SC\/ST in public view.<\/td> Court held alleged caste remarks were made inside home, not in public view<\/strong>; section inapplicable.<\/td><\/tr> Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)<\/strong><\/td> Sections 401 & 482<\/strong><\/td> Section 401 \u2013 High Court\u2019s revisional powers; Section 482 \u2013 inherent power to prevent abuse of law and secure justice.<\/td> Invoked by petitioners; Court used Section 482 CrPC to quash<\/strong> proceedings as abuse of process.<\/td><\/tr> Special Marriage Act, 1954<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Section 27(1)(a)\/(b)<\/strong><\/td> Grounds for divorce (pending matrimonial dispute).<\/td> Mentioned as related pending proceeding; no bearing on this case\u2019s outcome.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n \n