Kolkata High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a retired government doctor and a geologist, holding that the dowry and caste-based atrocity charges filed by the wife were “vague,” “omnibus,” and an “abuse of the process of law.” The court observed that natural marital discord was being weaponized to harass the husband and his family.
The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, in a judgment delivered on September 3, 2025, put an end to the criminal case pending before the Alipore Sessions Court against Dr. Hiralal Konar and his son, Anirban Konar, a geologist.
The case, Patuli Police Station Case No. 52/2022, was initiated on March 15, 2022, by the wife (Opposite Party No. 2). It invoked serious charges under Sections 498A (cruelty), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Juvenile Justice Act, and crucially, Section 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The Wife’s Allegations vs. Court’s Findings
The complainant had alleged a history of torture from the beginning of her marriage in 2014. She claimed she was subjected to physical assault, mental cruelty, caste-based slurs, and dowry demands. Specific incidents included being strangulated, locked in a room without food during the COVID-19 lockdown, and her husband breaking down a door with a knife.
However, Justice Gupta’s meticulous analysis of the First Information Report (FIR), statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC, and the case diary revealed critical flaws in the prosecution’s story.
The court found the allegations were “vague and omnibus in nature” with no specific dates, times, or places attributed to most incidents. The two dated incidents—an assault in July 2017 and another in November 2020—were not supported by any medical or injury reports from the alleged treatment at an Army Hospital.
The judge noted major inconsistencies between the written complaint and the victim’s subsequent statements to the police and magistrate. “She fails to attribute specific offence committed by a particular accused person,” the judgment reads.
Love Marriage Contradicts Claims of “Inception” Cruelty
A key factor influencing the court’s decision was the nature of the marriage. The couple had a registered marriage in 2011 and a ceremonial one in 2014 after a long courtship while working together at the Geological Survey of India.
Justice Gupta found it incongruent that the wife, who had been in a long-standing relationship with the man, would now claim he was “impatient, aggressive, unsupportive, cruel, uncaring… from the very inception of their conjugal life.” The court stated, “Such allegations… cannot easily commend acceptance to a prudent mind.”
On the critical charge under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, the court held that the essential ingredient of the offence being committed in “public view” was entirely missing.
The alleged casteist abuse by the mother-in-law, who is reported to have said “tora bangle tora sekor bakor khash” (you are from a lower caste, you are ugly and eat rotten beef), was stated to have occurred within the matrimonial home.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents in Hitesh Verma and Sudhakar cases, the High Court ruled, “The alleged incident… did not occur in public view or in public place. Therefore, it does not attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(u) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.”
Domestic Strife ≠ Criminal Cruelty
The court distinguished between criminal cruelty and ordinary domestic disputes. It listed several allegations—like the wife buying furniture, being asked to feed her child, purchasing baby items online, or contributing to EMI payments for their jointly owned apartment—and stated these are normal expectations in a conjugal life.
“The opposite party no. 2 is an educated and earning woman, and the routine expectations… cannot, by any stretch, constitute ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of Section 498A IPC,” Justice Gupta observed.
The court also noted that independent witnesses, including a neighbour, did not corroborate any sounds of quarrel or violence from the couple’s residence.
A Warning Against Misuse of Law
Echoing the recent Supreme Court judgment in Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana, the High Court cautioned against the tendency to implicate all family members in matrimonial cases with vague allegations.
The judgment cited the apex court’s observation: “Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinised, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm-twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family.”
Concluding that the case fell into categories where continuation would be oppressive, the court invoked its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the entire proceeding against the petitioners, preventing what it deemed a “gross abuse of the process of law.”
Connect with us at mystory@aawaazuthao.com