In a significant order delivered on February 24, 2026, the Calcutta High Court partly allowed a criminal revision petition filed by members of a husband’s family in a matrimonial dispute. The Court set aside the trial court’s refusal to discharge two in-laws from a charge under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code (attempt to commit culpable homicide), while directing the remaining accused to face trial.
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) passed the order in CRR 4013 of 2023, observing that the trial court had failed to give proper reasons while rejecting the discharge plea.
Read also:- Sikkim High Court Closes NHM Transfer Dispute After Amicable Settlement Between Employee
Background of the Case
The case arose from a complaint lodged in July 2017 by a woman against her husband and his family members. She alleged physical and mental cruelty soon after her marriage in December 2015.
Among the allegations were claims that she was assaulted during pregnancy and that certain medicines were forcibly administered to her in 2015, causing serious health complications. She also claimed that she was driven out of her matrimonial home.
Following investigation, police filed a charge sheet under Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 325 (grievous hurt), and 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), read with Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC.
The accused family members moved the Sessions Court seeking discharge from the Section 308 charge. The trial court rejected their plea, prompting them to approach the High Court.
Read also:- Patna High Court Dismisses Plea for Compensation Over Alleged Illegal Detention, Flags Lapses
Arguments Before the High Court
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the complaint was filed more than a year after the alleged incidents and only after the husband initiated divorce proceedings. It was submitted that the allegations were “omnibus in nature” meaning general and without specific roles attributed to certain accused, especially the elderly in-laws.
They further contended that medical documents relied upon by the complainant did not clearly support the allegation of forced administration of medicine.
On the other hand, the complainant’s counsel argued that there were sufficient materials collected during investigation to justify framing of charges. The prosecution maintained that the High Court should not examine the truth of medical records at this preliminary stage.
Read also:- Madras High Court Rules Grandparents Not ‘Family’ for Stamp Duty Concession in Settlement Deeds
Court’s Observations
Justice Chatterjee carefully examined the complaint, medical papers, and the reasoning of the trial court.
The Court noted that while the complaint mentioned forcible administration of medicine in June 2015, the medical prescription from July 2015 did not clearly record such allegations. The Court observed that a detailed certificate issued by the doctor came almost two years later.
At the same time, the Court found that there were specific allegations regarding an incident on March 18, 2016, when the complainant alleged physical assault during pregnancy. That allegation, the Court said, was prima facie supported by medical documents of that date.
Referring to Supreme Court judgments on misuse of criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes, the Court reiterated that “mere naming of family members without specific material may amount to abuse of the process of law.”
The judge also emphasized that the right of discharge is a valuable legal safeguard available to an accused. “The discretion of the High Court must be exercised carefully to prevent miscarriage of justice,” the Court noted.
Importantly, the Court found that the trial court’s order lacked clear reasoning while rejecting the discharge plea.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Sends 17-Year-Old Girl to Mehsana Children Home After She Refuses to Return
The Decision
After analyzing the materials on record, the High Court partly allowed the revision petition.
The Court discharged two of the in-laws - the mother-in-law and sister-in-law - from the charge under Section 308 IPC, holding that there was insufficient material to proceed against them for that offence.
However, the Court refused to discharge the remaining accused persons, observing that specific allegations of assault were made against them and were supported by medical prescriptions. They will now face trial before the Sessions Court.
The criminal revision was accordingly allowed in part, and the trial court’s order was set aside to that extent.
No order was passed as to costs.
Case Title: Bharat Soni & Ors. vs Nandini Soni & Anr.
Case No.: CRR 4013 of 2023
Decision Date: February 24, 2026
