FIR Lodged After Restitution of Conjugal Rights Suit Appears Retaliatory: Calcutta High Court Quashes Domestic Violence Case

General and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Proceedings - Calcutta High Court quashed a domestic violence case against a husband and his family members, holding that the FIR appeared retaliatory and lacked any specific role attribution. The court found that the wife had lodged the complaint only after receiving notice of a restitution of conjugal rights suit filed by her husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, reinforcing the inference of malicious prosecution.

The bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh ruled that the FIR contained vague and omnibus allegations without independent corroboration, making it a fit case for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. The High Court also noted serious contradictions in medical evidence, stating that while the wife alleged physical assault, her injury report showed no external injuries. “The law cannot be used as a tool for harassment," the court observed, as it set aside the criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantan, Paschim Medinipur.

FIR Lodged After Husband’s Suit for Restitution of Conjugal Rights: Court Sees Malicious Prosecution

The petitioner, Nandadulal Dey, had filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights on October 18, 2023. However, just nine days later, on October 27, 2023, his wife filed an FIR alleging domestic violence, claiming that she had been driven out of her matrimonial home on April 21, 2023.

The court found this delay in filing the complaint to be unexplained and suspect, observing, "If the wife was indeed subjected to domestic abuse and thrown out of her matrimonial home in April 2023, why did she wait for more than six months to file an FIR? The fact that the complaint was lodged only after the husband’s restitution of conjugal rights suit makes it highly improbable that this is a genuine grievance."

The court ruled that the FIR appeared to be a retaliatory measure rather than a legitimate complaint, which justified quashing the proceedings.

"General Allegations Without Specific Roles Are Insufficient for Criminal Proceedings": High Court Cites Supreme Court Precedents

Examining the contents of the FIR and charge sheet, the High Court observed that the allegations against the accused were vague, lacking details of any specific role played by each petitioner in the alleged offences.

The court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sharif Ahmed v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 726, which held that an investigating officer must clearly outline the role of each accused in the charge sheet. Justice Ghosh noted, "A mere statement that ‘all the family members harassed the wife’ does not meet the threshold required for criminal prosecution. The law mandates specificity, not sweeping generalizations."

The court further observed that statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were identical, raising serious doubts about their credibility.

Contradictions in Medical Report Undermine Prosecution’s Case

The High Court also found contradictions in the medical evidence, which further weakened the prosecution’s case.

The wife had alleged that her husband physically assaulted her, yet her medical report recorded no external injuries. Despite this, the report classified the injury as "simple", leading the court to remark, "It defies logic as to how an injury can be classified as ‘simple’ when no injury was found at all."

The court also noted that the medical officer had not been examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C., reinforcing the finding that the case lacked substantive evidence.

Court Exercises Inherent Powers Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to Prevent Abuse of Process

Emphasizing that criminal law cannot be misused for settling personal scores, the Calcutta High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. The court held, "While the power to quash an FIR must be used with caution, when the allegations fail to disclose a cognizable offence and the prosecution appears motivated, the High Court must step in to prevent the abuse of legal process."

In conclusion, the court quashed the entire proceedings in G.R. Case No. 895 of 2023 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantan, Paschim Medinipur, observing that allowing such cases to proceed would "set a dangerous precedent where criminal law is weaponized for personal vendettas."

The petitioners, including the husband and his family members, were discharged from all criminal liability, with the court directing their immediate release from bail bonds.

Date of Decision: 28/01/2025