Authority: High Court at Calcutta

Order Date: 06.10.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Sukanta Sarkar (brother of principal accused) and Ruma Sarkar (his wife) filed revisional application CRR 2028 of 2023 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against criminal proceedings arising from Harishchandrapur Police Station Case No. 417 of 2017 dated 14.05.2017.
  • The original FIR alleged physical assault, dowry‑related torture and attempted immolation on 02.05.2017, charging seven persons under IPC sections 341, 325, 498A, 307, 34 and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3/4. The principal accused Ramkrishna Sarkar was absconding; the petitioners were named as collateral relatives.
  • Investigation led to Charge Sheet No. 698 of 2017 (30.09.2017). The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chanchal, Malda, on 28.10.2021 committed the case to the Additional Sessions Judge, Malda, under Section 209 Cr.P.C.
  • Petitioners argued that the complaint was lodged ten years after marriage, that they were residing in Kolkata and that Sukanta Sarkar was employed as a regular officer of State Bank of India, Darjeepara Branch, making his presence in Malda on 02.05.2017 physically impossible. They submitted employment certificates (Annexures P‑3, P‑4) and residential proof.
  • The State opposed quashing, contending that the FIR and charge‑sheet contained ocular and documentary evidence, and that alibi is a factual issue to be decided at trial.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the FIR and charge‑sheet do not disclose any specific overt act by the petitioners that would satisfy the ingredients of IPC sections 498A or 307; the allegations are vague and constitute over‑implication.
  • The employment and residence documents were deemed unimpeachable, establishing a solid alibi and geographical impossibility.
  • Accordingly, the Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the criminal proceedings against Sukanta Sarkar and Ruma Sarkar, ordering the impugned proceedings to be set aside for them.
  • The quashing is limited to the two petitioners; the trial against the remaining co‑accused will continue before the Sessions Court. No order as to costs was made; interim orders, if any, stand vacated.

Topics: Court Proceedings, Dowry Prosecution