Introduction:

In a significant reaffirmation of the settled principles governing criminal prosecution and the limits of invoking penal law in matrimonial disputes, the Calcutta High Court has quashed a dowry harassment and attempt to murder case instituted against a husband and his family members, holding that a second criminal proceeding on the self-same incident with identical allegations cannot be sustained in law. The criminal revision arose out of proceedings initiated by the wife against her husband Asish Bera and his relatives, arrayed as accused along with him, before the Magistrate at Ranaghat, Nadia. Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das, while exercising inherent jurisdiction, found that an earlier FIR had already been registered at Sagar Police Station concerning the very same incident dated 18 March 2022, and that the subsequent complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC was filed without disclosing the existence of the earlier FIR. The Court noted that the second proceeding not only replicated the allegations made earlier but also suffered from serious legal infirmities, material inconsistencies, and vague omnibus accusations against the in-laws, with no specific overt acts attributed to them. Holding that the continuation of such proceedings would amount to harassment and a gross misuse of the criminal justice system, the Court quashed the entire second prosecution, reiterating that criminal law cannot be permitted to become a tool for vengeance or oppression in matrimonial conflicts.

Arguments:

On behalf of the accused petitioners, it was contended that the impugned criminal proceeding was wholly illegal, mala fide, and an abuse of the process of law, as it arose from the same matrimonial dispute and the same alleged incident for which an FIR had already been lodged earlier. It was argued that the de-facto complainant, after initiating the first FIR, deliberately suppressed that fact and approached a different forum by filing a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC, resulting in registration of a second FIR with substantially identical allegations. Such a course of action, it was submitted, is impermissible in law and violates the settled principle that there cannot be two parallel criminal proceedings in respect of the same occurrence. The petitioners further submitted that the allegations against the in-laws were entirely general, sweeping, and mechanical, without any specific role, date, time, or overt act being attributed to them, reflecting a common tendency to rope in the entire family of the husband in matrimonial disputes. Attention was drawn to the case diary, which allegedly did not support grave accusations such as attempt to murder by pouring kerosene or forcible termination of pregnancy, and to inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC, particularly regarding the alleged abortion. It was also argued that the mandatory procedural safeguards under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC had not been complied with before invoking the Magistrate’s jurisdiction under Section 156(3), rendering the initiation of the second FIR legally unsustainable. Reliance was placed on authoritative Supreme Court precedents including Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., and Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal to submit that courts must exercise inherent powers to prevent misuse of criminal law, especially in matrimonial disputes where exaggerated and vindictive allegations are often made.

On the other hand, the State and the de-facto complainant opposed the revision, contending that the allegations disclosed serious cognizable offences including cruelty, dowry demand, attempt to murder, and illegal abortion, which warranted a full-fledged trial. It was argued that the complainant had been subjected to sustained physical and mental cruelty following her marriage, and that the seriousness of the allegations should deter the High Court from exercising its inherent jurisdiction at a preliminary stage. It was further submitted that inconsistencies or contradictions in statements, if any, were matters for trial and appreciation of evidence, and that quashing the proceedings at the threshold would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution. The State contended that the power under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only in the rarest of cases, and that the present case did not meet that threshold.

Judgment:

After carefully examining the pleadings, case diary, and applicable law, the Calcutta High Court allowed the criminal revision and quashed the second proceeding in its entirety. Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das held that the most striking and fatal infirmity in the prosecution’s case was the institution of two criminal proceedings arising out of the same incident dated 18 March 2022, with substantially identical allegations. The Court observed that once an FIR had already been registered concerning a particular occurrence, the de-facto complainant could not lawfully initiate another criminal proceeding before a different forum on the same facts, particularly by suppressing the existence of the earlier FIR. Such conduct, the Court held, strikes at the very root of fair criminal process and amounts to an abuse of the process of law. The Court further noted that the allegations against the in-laws were omnibus and general in nature, lacking specific attribution of roles or overt acts, and appeared to be a classic example of mechanically implicating all family members of the husband in a matrimonial dispute. On examining the case diary, the Court found no corroborative material to support serious allegations such as attempt to burn the complainant by pouring kerosene, nor any medical or documentary evidence substantiating the claim of forcible abortion. The Court also took serious note of inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements under Section 164 CrPC, which materially undermined the credibility of the prosecution case at its very foundation. Additionally, the Court held that the mandatory requirements under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC had not been complied with before approaching the Magistrate under Section 156(3), rendering the Magistrate’s order vulnerable. Relying on binding Supreme Court precedents, the Court reiterated that the inherent power of the High Court exists to secure the ends of justice and to prevent misuse of criminal law, and that allowing the impugned prosecution to continue would result in harassment and injustice. Concluding that there was no sufficient material to justify putting the accused to trial, the Court quashed the proceedings pending before the Magistrate, directed return of the case diary, and held that continuation of the second prosecution would be an “absolute abuse of the process of law.”