Prasanta Kumar Dhar & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr. – Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 16908 of 2024) – 2026 INSC 1087 – 5 October 2026 – Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J. and N.V. Anjaria, J.
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/53370/53370_2024_16_1502_74923_Judgement_05-Oct-2026.pdf
Appellant and impugned order challenged
The appellants, the complainant’s father-in-law and mother-in-law, challenged the Calcutta High Court’s order dated 12 November 2024 in C.R.R. No. 280 of 2024. The High Court had quashed the charge under Section 323 IPC but declined to quash the remaining proceedings against them. [paras 2, 3, 8, 9]
Factual matrix
The complainant married the appellants’ son in February 2021; after the husband’s transfer to Siliguri, she lived with the appellants, and a child was born in July 2023. Following alleged matrimonial disputes involving cruelty and dowry demands, she left the matrimonial home and lodged an FIR alleging taunts, demands for a vehicle, inadequate support during pregnancy, and coercion to sign a document concerning her streedhan. A chargesheet was filed against the appellants and the husband under IPC Sections 498A, 406, 506 and 323 and Dowry Prohibition Act Sections 3 and 4; the case was pending at the stage of framing charges. [paras 3–7]
Other courts verdicts
The chargesheet was filed after investigation, and the matter remained pending before the trial court for framing of charges. The High Court partly allowed the appellants’ quashing petition by quashing the Section 323 IPC charge, but left the other charges for trial. [paras 6, 8]
Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent
The appellants argued that this was primarily a dispute between the complainant and her husband, that they had been implicated because of their family relationship, and that the allegations lacked particulars and supporting evidence; they also relied on the alleged ten-day delay in reporting the document-signing incident. The State and complainant responded that the complaint described dowry demands and cruelty, that the sufficiency and truth of the evidence belonged at trial, and that mental cruelty need not produce medical evidence. [paras 11–13]
Ratio Decidendi
In matrimonial-dispute prosecutions, quashing requires a careful assessment of whether specific, credible allegations and prima facie supporting material show each accused’s involvement; general or omnibus accusations unsupported by investigative material do not justify subjecting relatives to criminal trial. Applying that approach to the alleged cruelty, dowry demands, breach of trust and intimidation, the Court found insufficient material against these appellants and held that the High Court should have quashed the remaining proceedings against them. [paras 16–18, 20–26, 28–29]
Directions issued
Proceedings arising from FIR No. 152/2023 were quashed insofar as the appellants were concerned, including those under IPC Sections 498A, 406 and 506 and Dowry Prohibition Act Sections 3 and 4. The Court clarified that its observations did not address the merits of the case against the husband or any other civil proceeding or remedy. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of. [paras 29–32]
Important paragraphs
What are the charges? 18. The chargesheet filed mentions the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 506, 323 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. The charge under Section 323 IPC was quashed by the High Court and the remaining charges survived. We, therefore, must examine each section to see if prima facie materials exist corresponding to each of the offences.
Complaint nor Investigation reveals that accused caused grave injury to her: 20. A perusal of the records, however, shows that neither the complaint nor the investigation carried out by the police reveals any material that indicates that the Appellants herein had caused grave injury to her life, limb or mental or physical health, nor do they reveal any independent material that the Appellants harassed her for any property or valuable security.
Allegations do not disclose the presence of any independent witnesses: 21. As regards the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, the complainant has alleged that the Appellants and the complainant’s husband had demanded and accordingly were paid Rs. 5 lakhs at the time of the marriage. Further, demands for a four-wheeler were made by them, in fulfilment of which, furniture was allegedly given to them. The specifics of the same, any other witnesses privy to the demands for dowry, and any material outside of the allegations of the complainant did not surface during the investigation. The allegations do not disclose the particulars of the demands of dowry made by the Appellants, the occasions, the presence of any independent witnesses, or the manner such that such specific overt acts constituting cruelty under Section 498A IPC were committed.
No entrustment of property and misappropriation of the same: 23. The investigation has not revealed specifics of the property entrusted to the Appellants and whether at all such property has been misappropriated or converted to their own use. Only vague and omnibus allegations have been made against the Appellants without any specificity whatsoever. From a bare reading of the allegations unsupported by any material evidence, the charge under Section 406 IPC cannot be sustained against the Appellants.
No threats made by the appellants to the complainant: 25. We find that the allegations made and investigation carried out do not reveal details as to any threats made by the Appellants to the complainant, her family, their property or their reputation. It is pertinent to note that the complainant states that her signing of the document stating that she has received all of her streedhan and valuables back was made under duress and coercion and intimidation of the first Appellant and her husband. However, the only material to demonstrate any coercive or intimidating behaviour of the first Appellant is her own complaint and the statements of her parents recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. There is no other evidence/material on record to implicate the first Appellant as regards the allegations of coercion or intimidation at the complainant’s parental house.
Applying the judgments to quash the proceedings: 26. Finding reliance on Bhajan Lal (supra), Arti Mehta (supra) and Geddam Jhansi (supra), we are of the view that the allegations levelled against the present Appellants are not specific, cogent and credible. They do not attribute an overt or specific act to either Appellant. Neither the complaint nor the investigation reveals any independent material that shows that the Appellants as the in-laws of the complainant committed any of the offences mentioned in the FIR or the chargesheet. The allegations against the Appellants for the demands for dowry, of criminal intimidation and cruelty find no supporting material in the FIR or the chargesheet submitted after the investigation. The oral allegations are devoid of any supporting material or witnesses, which renders the allegations of the complainant against the Appellants without any legal basis to continue the legal proceedings against the Appellants.
Conclusion
28. We, therefore, find that the complaint and investigation, as they currently stand, do not disclose sufficient material to warrant subjecting the Appellants herein to the rigours of a criminal trial. Since the allegations against the present Appellants are general and not substantiated by any investigative material in the chargesheet, the High Court ought to have quashed the entire proceedings against the present Appellants. The impugned order, to the extent that it declined to quash the remaining sections, cannot be sustained.
Set aside: 29. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 12.11.2024 passed by the High Court is set aside to the extent that it refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the Appellants qua Sections 498A, 406, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. Consequently, all proceedings out of F.I.R. No. 152/2023 registered at Police Station Siliguri Women, District Darjeeling are hereby quashed insofar as the present appellants are concerned.
Resources
Judgments Cited
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 — Sets out illustrative categories in which criminal proceedings may be quashed to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.
Arti Mehta v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 933 — Emphasizes examining whether a prima facie case exists against each accused in domestic-violence-related proceedings.
Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC — Stresses that criminal proceedings in domestic disputes require specific allegations and supporting material.
Acts and Sections Involved
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 482 — Inherent powers of the High Court; invoked in the quashing petition.
– Section 161 — Recording statements during police investigation.
– Indian Penal Code, 1860
– Section 498A — Cruelty by husband or his relatives.
– Section 405 — Criminal breach of trust.
– Section 406 — Punishment for criminal breach of trust.
– Section 503 — Criminal intimidation.
– Section 506 — Punishment for criminal intimidation.
– Section 323 — Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt; charge quashed by the High Court.
– Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
– Sections 3 and 4 — Penalty for giving or taking dowry, and penalty for demanding dowry.
