Judicial Insight
Back to feed
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. …
Read the full judgmentpowered by IKanoon

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