In a detailed judgment delivered on February 20, 2026, the Calcutta High Court partly allowed a criminal revision plea seeking quashing of a dowry harassment case. The Court discharged the brother-in-law from the proceedings, holding that the allegations against him were vague. However, it refused to quash the case against the husband, observing that specific accusations of dowry demand and physical cruelty required trial.
The order was passed by Justice Uday Kumar in CRR 882 of 2022 Aritra Bhattacharyya.
Read also:- Patna High Court Dismisses Plea for Compensation Over Alleged Illegal Detention, Flags Lapses
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a matrimonial conflict between Ashis Kumar Dutta, a practicing advocate, and his wife Kasturi Dutta. The couple married in November 2005 and lived together for nearly twelve years. They have twin daughters born in 2012.
On March 30, 2017, the wife left the matrimonial home. She later filed a police complaint at Bantra Police Station in Howrah, alleging cruelty, dowry demand, and misappropriation of her belongings. The case was registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (cruelty by husband or relatives), along with other related provisions.
She claimed that shortly after marriage, she was subjected to physical and mental harassment over dowry. According to her complaint, on March 30, 2017, she was assaulted and forced out of the house after her father allegedly failed to pay Rs. 1 lakh for the purchase of a four-wheeler.
The husband denied the allegations. He argued that his wife left voluntarily and relied on a written declaration signed by her father on the same day, stating that there were no grievances against the in-laws. He also pointed out that he had filed a matrimonial suit seeking restitution of conjugal rights before the criminal complaint was lodged.
Read also:- Sikkim High Court Closes NHM Transfer Dispute After Amicable Settlement Between Employee
After investigation, police filed a charge sheet against the husband and his brother.
Arguments Before the Court
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the criminal case was a “counter-blast” to the matrimonial proceedings initiated by the husband. They relied on Supreme Court judgments cautioning against misuse of Section 498A and the tendency to implicate the entire family in matrimonial disputes.
It was contended that the allegations against the brother-in-law were general and lacked specific details such as dates, incidents, or overt acts.
The State opposed the plea. It argued that once a charge sheet has been filed, the High Court should not conduct a “mini-trial” by evaluating the evidence at the threshold stage. The prosecution maintained that the truth of the “no-complaint” letter was a matter to be examined during trial.
Read also:- Madras High Court Rules Grandparents Not ‘Family’ for Stamp Duty Concession in Settlement Deeds
Court’s Observations
The Court framed the central issue: whether the materials on record disclosed a prima facie (at first glance) case against both accused persons.
Justice Uday Kumar noted that courts must strike a balance. On one hand, the law must protect women from domestic cruelty. On the other, it must guard against over-implication of relatives without clear evidence.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court observed:
“The mere status of being a relative does not automatically attract criminal liability. Liability must be based on specific acts.”
Examining the complaint, the Court found that the allegations against the brother-in-law were broad and unspecific. There were no clear details of dates, specific incidents, or distinct acts of cruelty attributed to him.
The judge remarked that forcing a relative to undergo a criminal trial based on “general and omnibus allegations” would amount to misuse of the legal process.
However, the Court drew a clear distinction regarding the husband. It noted that the wife had made specific claims — including a demand of Rs. 1 lakh and an alleged physical ouster on a particular date.
The Court observed:
“While the ‘No-Complaint’ declaration may be a strong defence, its authenticity and voluntariness are matters of evidence and cannot be conclusively determined at this stage.”
The judge emphasized that the High Court, while exercising inherent powers to quash proceedings, cannot assess disputed facts that require cross-examination and trial.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Sends 17-Year-Old Girl to Mehsana Children Home After She Refuses to Return to
The Decision
The High Court partly allowed the revision petition.
- Proceedings against the brother-in-law were quashed.
- He was discharged from his bail bonds.
- The case against the husband will continue before the trial court.
The Court directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously and clarified that its observations should not influence the merits of the evidence during trial.
With this, CRR 882 of 2022 was disposed of. Aritra Bhattacharyya
Case Title: Ashis Kumar Dutta & Anr. vs State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case No.: CRR 882 of 2022
Decision Date: February 20, 2026
