The Calcutta High Court clarifies that criminal proceedings under Sections 85/316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, may be quashed against relatives like parents-in-law when allegations are general and not specifically supported by evidence, while proceedings against the primary accused (husband) should continue if serious allegations exist. This upholds existing precedent and provides binding authority for similar cases concerning omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRR/4954/2024 of SUBHANKAR DAS AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR |
| CNR | WBCHCA0557762024 |
| Date of Registration | 22-11-2024 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | PARTLY ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE APURBA SINHA RAY |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing approach towards omnibus allegations in matrimonial offences |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (BNS, 2023; Quashing of Proceedings; Matrimonial Disputes) |
| Questions of Law | Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 85/316(2) of BNS, 2023, should be quashed against relatives of the complainant where the allegations are omnibus in nature and lack independent supporting evidence. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court found that allegations against the parents-in-law were omnibus and unsupported by evidence (lack of independent witness statements under Section 161 CrPC / Section 180 BNSS, 2023), justifying quashing of proceedings against them. However, serious and specific allegations remained against the husband, so proceedings must continue against him. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | No specific prior judgments are cited in the text. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Consideration of the nature of allegations (omnibus vs. specific) and the presence or absence of supporting evidence in the case diary. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The complainant alleged being driven out of her matrimonial house within two months of marriage. The petitioners argued allegations were omnibus; the State cited some evidence regarding recovery of ‘stree dhan’ but admitted there were no statements of independent witnesses. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and potentially the Supreme Court in matrimonial omnibus allegations context |
| Follows | Existing judicial approach distinguishing omnibus from specific allegations in matrimonial disputes |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Omnibus allegations against relatives (such as parents-in-law) without supporting independent evidence can be a valid ground for quashing under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS, 2023.
- Serious and specific allegations against the primary accused (e.g., husband) will not be quashed where prima facie evidence supports the charges.
- Absence of statements from independent witnesses was significant in quashing proceedings against parents-in-law.
- Lawyers can cite this as binding precedent within West Bengal for distinguishing between omnibus and specific allegations in quashing petitions under BNS, 2023.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court first examined the materials on record and the case diary for evidence supporting the allegations against each petitioner.
- It distinguished between “serious” and “omnibus” allegations, labeling those against the parents-in-law as generic and unsupported by evidence.
- The court noted the State’s inability to produce statements from independent witnesses under Section 161 CrPC / Section 180 BNSS, 2023.
- By contrast, the court found “serious allegations” against the husband were supported in the record.
- Applying this distinction, the court quashed proceedings against parents-in-law but refused to do so for the husband.
- The approach thus aligns with established principles regarding quashing proceedings in the face of omnibus versus specific allegations in matrimonial offences.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The FIR contains omnibus, unspecific allegations.
- No supporting evidence from the investigating agency justifies proceeding against the parents-in-law.
- Notice was issued to the complainant to return to her matrimonial home, rebuffing her allegations.
Respondent (State)
- Sufficient materials exist in the case diary to support allegations that the complainant was driven out of the matrimonial home.
- Recovery of ‘stree dhan’ articles was effected.
- No statements from independent witnesses have been recorded as part of the investigation.
Factual Background
The dispute arises out of an FIR lodged by the complainant, alleging that, within two months of marriage, she was driven out from her matrimonial home. FIR was registered as Baguiati P.S. Case No. 379/2024. The case was charge-sheeted under Sections 85 and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners moved for quashing of the criminal proceedings, contending that the allegations, especially as against the parents-in-law, were omnibus and unsupported. The State admitted the absence of independent witness statements.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections Invoked: Sections 85/316(2) of the BNS, 2023.
- Procedural Law Discussed: Section 482 of CrPC / Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (inherent powers to quash proceedings).
- Evidentiary Standards: Reliance on whether independent witness statements under Section 161 CrPC / Section 180 BNSS were available to support the allegations.
- The judgment applied a restrictive interpretation, requiring more than omnibus allegations to sustain criminal proceedings against relatives.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.