"No Complaint" Documents Don’t Warrant Quashing For Husband If Specific Overt Acts Are Alleged: Calcutta High Court

The High Court was considering an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), seeking to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Court for quashing the proceedings before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

The Single Bench of Justice Uday Kumar held, “In view of the exhaustive discussions above, this Court arrived at findings that criminal proceedings against distant relatives based on vague, non-specific allegations constitute an abuse of process, and factual defenses and "NoComplaint" documents are matters of trial evidence and do not automatically warrant quashing for the primary accused (the husband) if specific overt acts are alleged.”

Advocate Aritra Bhattacharyya represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Bitasok Banerjee represented the State.

Factual Background

A marital union between the first Petitioner, a practising Advocate, and the second Opposite Party that commenced in 2005 remained functionally intact for approximately twelve years, during which the parties resided together, and twin daughters were born in 2012. The wife left the matrimonial home. While the wife alleged a forced ouster, the husband contended that the departure was a voluntary withdrawal from his society, facilitated by her father, who purportedly signed a "No-Complaint" declaration on the same date. The complainant (wife) alleged that shortly after marriage, she became the target of sustained physical and mental cruelty fuelled by insatiable dowry demands. She also claimed that she was physically assaulted and ousted from her matrimonial home "in a single cloth" after her father failed to provide Rs 1 lakh for a four-wheeler. She further alleged a history of drunken abuse by the second Petitioner (Brother-in-law) and the misappropriation of her Stridhan.

On the other hand, the husband claimed that the marriage was plagued by the wife's alleged extramarital involvement. He placed reliance on a written declaration signed by the wife's father on the very day of the separation, asserting that the departure was voluntary and devoid of grievances. Following the investigation, the police submitted a Charge Sheet against the husband and brother-in-law, leading to the Revisional Application.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, mentioned that in matrimonial disputes, it is increasingly witnessing a phenomenon where the "process becomes the punishment." The Bench further explained that the mere status of being a relative (in-law) of the husband does not suffice to sustain a prosecution, and criminal liability must be individualised, requiring a surgical scrutiny of the specific roles attributed to each accused.

On a perusal of the FIR, Case Diary and the statement of the complainant, the Bench noted that the allegations against the Petitioner Brother-in-law that he "regularly abused her in a drunken condition," and joined in the general demand for dowry, were general and omnibus in nature. The Bench found a total absence of specific dates, times, or overt acts of cruelty attributed specifically to him.

“This Court, therefore, applies the "Filter Theory" of jurisprudence under Section 482. Our duty is not a binary choice between total dismissal or total allowance; it is a duty to act as a gatekeeper and "filter" the proceedings. If a relative is accused only of "mental torture" or "general abuse" without specific details, there is no "fact" to dispute. In such instances, forcing a relative to undergo a protracted criminal trial based on "soft grievances" constitutes a manifest travesty of justice and a violation of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. By quashing the case against Petitioner No. 2, the Court filters out the "background noise" while keeping the "core conflict" intact”, it added.

Coming to the allegations made against the husband, the Bench concluded that proceedings against him disclosed triable issues regarding dowry demand and physical cruelty, which required evidence and cross-examination.As per the Bench, the "Defense-Evidence Bar" at the threshold stage prevents the Court from accepting the "No-Complaint" letter as absolute truth. “The distinction between a "bad case" and a "legally unsustainable case" is vital; while the husband’s defense may appear strong, it does not render the FIR "inherently improbable" at the threshold”, it added.

Thus, partly allowing the Revisional Application, the Bench quashed the proceedings against the brother-in-law while keeping the proceedings intact against the husband.

Cause Title: A v. State of West Bengal (Case No.: CRR 882 of 2022)

Click here to read/download Judgment