The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings, including under the SC/ST Act, against a husband and his family in a wife’s cruelty case, holding that there was no material in the case diary to show that the complainant was abused in public and that the allegations were vague and omnibus.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings, including those under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against a husband and in-laws arising from a wife’s complaint of cruelty and caste-based insult, holding that there was no material to show that the offences alleged were made out [Anita Mahajan and Others v. State of West Bengal and Another].
A Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) allowed the criminal revisions filed by the husband and his family members.
The allegations
The wife alleged that her husband and parents-in-law subjected her to mental and physical torture, humiliated her by saying that they had erred in marrying into a Scheduled Caste family, threatened to expel her, and sought to arrange her husband’s remarriage to a woman of a higher caste. The FIR and charge sheet, registered at Garfa Police Station, invoked provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 498A, 406, 509 and 506, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(t) of the SC/ST Act. These are allegations; the Court found no material to support the SC/ST Act charges.
“Public view” requirement
On the SC/ST Act charges, the Court held that the offences of insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate must take place in a place within public view and be connected to the victim’s caste, and found that requirement unmet. It observed:
“There is no material in the case diary to show that the de facto complainant was allegedly abused in public.”
The Bench applied the distinction, drawn in the Supreme Court’s decision in Swaran Singh, between a public place and a place within public view, noting that a private setting lacks the required public element.
No material in the FIR or charge sheet
The Court held:
“Though the de facto complainant states that she has been insulted due to her caste, there is absolutely no materials or statements on record to make out any of the offences against the opposite party as alleged, neither in the FIR, nor in the charge sheet.”
The Bench found the allegations vague and omnibus, without specific instances, dates or particulars of the harassment alleged, and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners.
Why The SC/ST Act Judgment Matters
The ruling applies the public-view requirement of Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC/ST Act to a matrimonial dispute, and holds that a bare assertion of caste insult, without particulars or material in the FIR or charge sheet, cannot sustain a prosecution. It records no view on the wife’s separate grievances beyond finding the allegations unsupported.
Case Details: Anita Mahajan and Others v. State of West Bengal and Another | CRR 529 of 2021 with CRR 531 of 2021 | Before: Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) | Date of judgment: September 29, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Aniruddha Bhattacharya (CRR 529) and Advocates Dibayan Banerjee and Abhrajit Roy Chowdhury (CRR 531) for the petitioners; Advocates Goutam Kumar Das, Gouranga Das and Koel Mukherjee for the State.