Back to feed Read the full judgment
IndiaCriminal
Prasanta Kumar Dhar vs The State Of West Bengal
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- Oct 5, 2026
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 1087
- Judges
- Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, N.V. Anjaria
AI breakdown
- A woman filed complaints against her in-laws, alleging dowry harassment and other abuses.
- The Supreme Court dismissed all charges against the in-laws, as there was insufficient evidence.
- The decision emphasized the need for specific evidence in domestic dispute cases.
Outcome
As a result, the present criminal appeal is allowed in the above terms.
Taken from the judgment's conclusion. Check the full text for the exact order.
Parties
Applicant
Prasanta Kumar Dhar
Respondent
The State Of West Bengal
Judgment text (excerpt)
Prasanta Kumar Dhar vs The State Of West Bengal on 5 October, 2026
2026 INSC 1087
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. OF 2026
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 16908 OF 2024)
PRASANTA KUMAR DHAR & ANR. …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. …RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and final
order dated 12.11.2024 passed by the High Court of Calcutta,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RAHUL KUMAR
Date: 2026.10.05
Jalpaiguri Circuit, in C.R.R No. 280 of 2024 whereby the High
18:16:00 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 16
Court partly allowed the petition filed by the Appellants herein
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), thus partially quashing
FIR No. 152/2023 dated 21.11.2023 registered at Police Station
Siliguri Women, District Darjeeling, West Bengal under Sections
498A, 406, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “DP Act”)
qua only Section 323 IPC, but declining to quash the proceedings
with respect to the other sections.
3. The Appellants herein are the father-in-law and mother-
in-law of Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “the
complainant”). The complainant married the Appellants’ son on
01.02.2021 as per Hindu rites and customs in Darjeeling. The
complainant and her husband initially resided in a separate
town. However, after the husband was transferred to Siliguri, the
complainant began to reside with the Appellants. A child was
born out of the wedlock on 17.07.2023.
…

Source: Indian Kanoon (indiankanoon.org). Indian court judgments are public records; the summary and translations are AI-generated.