Omnibus Allegations Cannot Be a Weapon in Property Feuds: Calcutta High Court Quashes Defamation & Intimidation Case

“Where Complaint Taken at Face Value Discloses No Essential Ingredients, Continuation of Proceedings is Abuse of Process” – In a pointed reminder that criminal law cannot be used as a pressure tactic in civil disputes, the Calcutta High Court on 24 February 2026 quashed criminal proceedings arising out of a long-standing family property rivalry.

Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) exercised inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and held that the complaint, even if accepted in its entirety, failed to disclose the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 500, 504, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court ruled that the allegations were vague, omnibus and unsupported by material particulars, and that continuation of the proceedings would amount to “abuse of the process of Court.”

Family Partition Suit Followed by Criminal Case

The dispute had its roots in a long-pending partition suit between members of the same extended family. Several civil proceedings were already pending, including a money suit claiming Rs. 30 lakhs as damages for alleged defamation.

The de-facto complainant, a senior government officer, alleged that the petitioner—her cousin—had subjected her to constant abuse, psychological torture, defamatory remarks, threats and even stalking. She expressed apprehension regarding her safety and that of her family, particularly during her advanced stage of pregnancy.

A charge sheet was filed under Sections 500, 504, 506 and 509 IPC. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the entire proceeding.

“No Specific Date, Time or Words Ascribed” – Complaint Found Vague

Upon examination of the complaint and case diary, the Court found a striking absence of particulars.

Justice Chatterjee (Das) observed:

“From the four corners of the entire written complaint, no specific date, time or even the nature of the offence can be found to have been ascribed against the petitioner.”

Although the complaint spoke of emotional distress and harassment, it did not identify the specific words allegedly spoken, the context in which they were uttered, or the exact nature of any threat.

Even the statements recorded during investigation were found to be devoid of concrete particulars.

“Imputation With Intention to Harm is the Core of Defamation”

Reproducing Section 499 IPC, the Court emphasised that defamation requires a specific imputation made with the intention or knowledge that it would harm the reputation of the complainant.

Relying on judicial precedents, the Court reiterated:

“Causing harm to the reputation of a person is the basis on which the offence is founded and mens rea is a condition precedent.”

The materials on record did not disclose any identifiable imputation lowering the complainant’s moral, intellectual or professional character. The essential ingredient of intention to harm reputation was absent.

The prosecution under Section 500 IPC was therefore held unsustainable.

“General Allegations of Threat Are Not Enough” – Sections 504 and 506 Not Attracted

The Court further examined whether the allegations disclosed intentional insult likely to provoke breach of peace under Section 504 IPC or criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.

While observing that a complaint need not reproduce every word verbatim, the Court stressed that it must at least indicate the nature of the insult or threat and its context.

The case diary did not reveal any specific threat causing alarm or any act intended to provoke public disturbance.

Mere assertions of harassment and threat, without particulars, were held insufficient to constitute the offences alleged.

“Insult to Modesty Requires Specific Words or Gestures” – Section 509 IPC Not Made Out

For an offence under Section 509 IPC, there must be specific words, gestures or acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman.

The Court found no description of such words or gestures in the complaint.

In the absence of any material showing intrusion into privacy or intentional insult to modesty, Section 509 IPC was held inapplicable.

Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour?

The High Court clarified that pendency of a civil suit does not automatically render a criminal case liable to be quashed. However, the Court must scrutinize whether the criminal process is being misused to settle civil scores.

In the present case, multiple civil proceedings between the parties, coupled with the vague and omnibus nature of allegations, persuaded the Court that the criminal case lacked the necessary criminal intent.

The Court invoked the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, holding that where allegations taken at face value do not constitute any offence, the High Court is justified in exercising its inherent powers.

“Inherent Power to Be Exercised Sparingly – But Where No Offence Is Made Out, Intervention Is Justified”

Reiterating the settled position on Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court observed that the power must be exercised cautiously and sparingly. Yet, when the complaint does not disclose essential ingredients of any offence, judicial intervention is necessary to prevent abuse of process.

“In the light of the law as laid down and interpreted by the various judicial authorities and the factual matrix of this case, this Court does not find materials on the face of the complaint in order to constitute an offence under the sections as alleged.”

The revisional application was allowed. The charge sheet dated 23.09.2022 and the criminal proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly, were quashed in entirety.

Date of Decision: 24/02/2026