MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

General and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Manifest in a Situation Where Relatives of the Complainant’s Husband are Forced to Undergo Trial” – Calcutta High Court Quashes Proceedings Under Section 498A IPC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Calcutta High Court today quashed the criminal proceedings against Dr. Ajay Kumar Arya under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, citing a lack of specific allegations and characterizing the charges as general and omnibus.

The court deliberated on the application of Section 498A IPC, which is designed to protect married women from cruelty by their husbands or his relatives. The court noted the increasing misuse of this provision in matrimonial disputes, echoing sentiments from several precedent judgments.

Dr. Arya was accused by his wife of mental torture and threats. The charge sheet filed by the police under Section 498A IPC postulated harassment and cruelty aimed at coercing her on property matters. The allegations, as highlighted in the charge, also included neglect towards the children’s expenses, which Dr. Arya contested by demonstrating ongoing financial support.

Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) meticulously assessed the submissions and evidence presented. Citing significant rulings such as Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., and Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr, the judgment emphasized the courts’ responsibility in preventing misuse of legal provisions intended for protection against actual cruelty. The court pointed out that:

The allegations must be specific a”d demonstrable, rather than broad and generalized, which could unjustly entangle individuals in protracted legal battles.

Misuse of Section 498A IPC has been a concern, often resulting in unnecessary legal skirmishes over trivial matrimonial issues.

It was evident from the case records and submissions that the allegations were not substantiated with requisite specificity or evidence that unequivocally indicated cruelty or harassment as defined under the IPC.

Decision: Justice Dutt concluded that the proceedings against Dr. Arya were primarily based on unspecific accusations lacking substantial legal merit. Accordingly, the court quashed the criminal proceedings under GR No. 2992 of 2016, including the related charge sheet and orders by the lower court. The decision underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding against the potential for legal provisions to be wielded as tools of personal vendetta.

Date of Decision: May 1, 2024.

Dr. Ajay Kumar Arya Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Latest Legal News