FIR Not an Encyclopedia, But Neglect May Be Cruelty: Calcutta High Court Declines to Quash 498A Case Against Husband

“Petitioner does not know the whereabouts of his wife and children… certainly an evidence to show, prima facie, that he is not taking care of them” — Calcutta High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Section 498A of the IPC against Sumit Roy, whose wife had accused him of physical assault and neglect, even though the complaint contained no allegation of dowry demand.

Justice Apurba Sinha Ray held that while some of the petitioner’s legal points carried weight, it was “not proper to quash” the case under Section 482 CrPC at this stage, particularly in the absence of the wife in the proceedings and given indications of possible neglect. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to raise his defences before the Trial Court at the stage of framing of charge.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the First Information Report did not disclose any cognizable offence under Section 498A IPC, citing Kashinath Bhar and Tarunjeet Singh Bhogal. He stressed that “cruelty” under the provision must be of a nature likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave harm, or be connected with unlawful demands of property.

The State opposed the plea, pointing to the charge sheet and statements under Section 161 CrPC that described the petitioner’s failure to take responsibility for his wife and two children. The prosecution maintained that there was evidence of physical and mental cruelty.

Justice Ray noted:

“It is now settled that an FIR is not an encyclopedia of events… The question is whether or not negligence for not taking care of one’s wife or children… can be defined as cognizable offence, or whether or not such allegations come under the definition of ‘cruelty’ as mentioned in Section 498A IPC.”

The Court was also struck by the petitioner’s inability to serve notice on his wife, with attempts through both private and police channels failing:

“Petitioner does not know the whereabouts of his wife and children which is certainly an evidence to show, prima facie, that petitioner in all probability is not taking care of his wife and children.”

While acknowledging that “the petitioner has certain points in his favour,” Justice Ray emphasised that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly, only where continuation of proceedings would be a sheer abuse of process. On this record, the Court found the case did not warrant such intervention.

Accordingly, the criminal revision was disposed of with no order as to costs, interim orders vacated, and liberty reserved for the petitioner to argue his points before the Trial Court during charge-framing.

Date of Decision: 29 July 2025