The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a married sister-in-law and her husband in a dowry harassment case, observing that vague and generalized allegations cannot justify forcing distant relatives into a criminal trial.
Justice Uday Kumar held that the prosecution failed to show any specific overt act against the couple, who had been living separately for nearly a decade.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a complaint filed by a woman against her husband and his family alleging cruelty, dowry harassment, and criminal breach of trust under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code along with provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
According to the complaint, the marriage took place on October 28, 2022. The woman alleged that within two months of marriage, disputes began over a demand of ₹3 lakh allegedly sought for the husband’s business. She later left the matrimonial home in April 2023 and lodged an FIR in October 2023.
Among those named in the FIR were the husband’s married sister and brother-in-law, who approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings.
The petitioners argued that they had been living independently in Tangra since 2014, maintained a separate household, and had no direct role in the matrimonial dispute.
Court’s Observations
The High Court closely examined the FIR, witness statements, and the case diary before concluding that the allegations against the petitioners were “generic” and lacked factual details.
“The term ‘instigation’ as utilized by the prosecution is a legal conclusion devoid of a factual substrate,” the bench observed.
Justice Uday Kumar noted that the complaint did not mention any specific incident, date, or act linking the petitioners to the alleged cruelty.
The Court also found the claim that the couple visited the matrimonial home “almost every day” to be inherently improbable, especially since the brother-in-law was employed as a Senior Associate at PwC and had his own family responsibilities.
Referring to earlier Supreme Court rulings including Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand and Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated that distant relatives cannot be mechanically implicated in matrimonial disputes without concrete material.
Findings on Stridhan and Criminal Breach of Trust
While examining the allegation relating to gold ornaments and Stridhan, the Court relied heavily on the complainant’s own written statement.
The bench pointed out that the complainant herself had stated that her ornaments were kept in the custody of her father-in-law. No recovery was made from the petitioners’ residence during investigation.
“One cannot ‘misappropriate’ that which one never ‘possessed’,” the Court remarked while holding that the essential ingredient of “entrustment” was missing against the petitioners.
Delay in FIR Considered Significant
The Court also took note of the six-month delay between the complainant leaving the matrimonial home and the registration of the FIR.
According to the judgment, the delay, coupled with broad allegations against separately residing relatives, indicated an attempt to widen the scope of the criminal case.
“The proceedings are maliciously intended to wreak vengeance,” the Court observed while discussing the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.
Court’s Decision
Allowing the revision petition, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings and charge sheet against the married sister-in-law and her husband alone.
However, the Court clarified that the trial would continue against the remaining accused persons, including the husband and parents-in-law, without being influenced by observations made in the present order.
Case Details
Case Title: Moniza Farooquee & Anr. vs State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case Number: CRR 619 of 2025
Judge: Justice Uday Kumar
Decision Date: April 28, 2026
