The Calcutta High Court has quashed an FIR filed under Section 498A of the IPC, holding that a wife’s inability to adjust with her in-laws, causing her to live separately, does not amount to “mental cruelty.”

Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed that there is no material showing wilful conduct by the husband or his family that could endanger her life or health. 

The complaint included allegations of assault, humiliation, and retention of the wife’s belongings. The FIR was lodged after 25 years of marriage without any explanation for the delay.

Finding only a solitary incident and no continuous cruel conduct, the Court quashed the proceedings.

[Sumanlal Kodialbail & Ors v State of West Bengal & Anr.]

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging a proprietary tender issued by Indian Oil Corporation’s Panipat Refinery.

The Court held that since the refinery is located in Panipat, no cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction.

The Court clarified that the mere fact that the tender was published online, or that the petitioner’s right to participate was allegedly affected within West Bengal, does not confer jurisdiction.

[Rubber Regenerating & Processing Co. v Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) & Anr.]

The Calcutta High Court held that seeking employment with another company, even a rival, is a basic right and does not amount to moral turpitude.

Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) ruled that an employee cannot be penalised for exploring better opportunities and set aside the employer’s decision to forfeit gratuity.

The Court directed payment of the full gratuity amount along with 8% interest, noting that the company had failed to prove any misconduct or financial loss.

The ruling came in a plea by an employee whose gratuity was withheld after he sought a job elsewhere.

[M/s. Xpro India Limited. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.]

The Calcutta High Court quashed criminal proceedings filed by a wife against her husband and in-laws under IPC Section 498A, SC/ST Act, Dowry Prohibition Act, and Juvenile Justice Act.

Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held that allegations such as sharing household expenses, feeding the child, or paying EMIs cannot amount to “cruelty”.

The Court noted the absence of specific dates, medical reports, or independent witness support, and observed that alleged caste-based remarks were made privately, not in public view, making SC/ST charges unsustainable.

Finding the claims vague and unsupported, the Court ruled that continuing the case would prejudice the accused.

The Calcutta High Court has held that an accused cannot be summoned under Section 91 of the CrPC to produce incriminating documents or evidence against themselves, as it violates the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

The Court stressed that the right against self-incrimination is a fundamental safeguard and prevents individuals from being forced to be witnesses against themselves.

The order came in a case where the prosecution sought to summon the accused for evidence.

Allowing the plea, the Court clarified that trial courts cannot misuse their powers to compel an accused to hand over material that incriminates them.

[Ram Kishan Mittal v State of West Bengal]

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Calcutta High Court demanding urgent repairs and maintenance of pothole-ridden roads across West Bengal.

The petition argues that neglected infrastructure jeopardises public safety, causing accidents and fatalities, and violates citizens’ fundamental right to life  as guaranteed under Article 21.

The petition urges the Court to direct to state authorities for systematic road upkeep, quality checks, and accountability for lapses. The PIL highlights how poor roads disrupt daily life, emergency services, and economic activities.

The plea is stated to be heard next in the second week of September.

The Calcutta High Court has directed the West Bengal government to withhold Durga Puja grants from clubs that failed to submit utilisation certificates for last year’s funds.

A division bench of Justices Sujoy Paul and Smita Das De issued the order after being informed that out of more than 41,000 clubs, three had not filed reports. 

The Court stated, “Don’t give money to those who have not submitted the certificates.”

It also mandated that this year’s grants must be accounted for through post-festivity reports to the state government. A detailed written order is awaited.

The Calcutta High Court directed the West Bengal government, along with the Kolkata and Bidhannagar Municipal Corporations, to submit reports on measures for the sterilisation of stray dogs.

The Bench of Justices Sujoy Paul and Smita Das granted four weeks’ time for filing the reports.

Advocate Akash Sharma, through a PIL, highlighted an alarming surge in dog-bite incidents from about 23,000 in 2022 to over 76,000 in 2024 and accused civic authorities of neglecting their duties under the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023.

[Akash Sharma v State of West Bengal & Ors]

Lawyers at the Calcutta High Court and Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) are abstaining from work to protest the police assault on an advocate in Kolkata.

The incident, which occurred during an altercation between lawyers and police, has triggered widespread condemnation and calls for accountability.

The legal community demands action against the officers involved and better protection for lawyers performing their duties.

The boycott underscores ongoing tensions between law enforcement and legal professionals, highlighting the need for mechanisms to address such conflicts and ensure the safety of those within the judicial system.

The Calcutta High Court held that disabled employees are entitled to remain posted at the same place even after promotion under policies framed pursuant to the Disabilities Act, 2005 and India’s international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

The Court emphasised that such policies are binding, and denial of posting violates equality under Articles 14 and 16. The petitioner, with 70% disability, had sought reversion due to hardship at Patna, which the Court found involuntary.

Rejecting the Bank’s argument of delay and non-binding policy, it ruled that departmental guidelines ensuring disability-friendly postings carry statutory force.

The impugned order was partly set aside.

[Anirban Pal v Punjab National Bank & Ors]

The Calcutta High Court has granted an injunction to Moondust Paper Pvt Ltd, the owner of the “Captain Gogo” trademark, in a suit alleging infringement by various entities. 

Justice Ravi Kishan Kapur found that the defendants’ products closely resemble the petitioner’s offerings, are sold through the same trade channels, and even mimic the petitioner’s copyright-protected packaging, leading to a strong likelihood of public confusion and deception.

The court held that the petitioner established a prima facie case of trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. Respondents failed to appear, prompting this ex parte decision.

The Calcutta High Court has commuted the death sentence of Aftab Alam, convicted for murdering his maternal uncle during a 2023 Dhupguri dacoity, to life imprisonment without remission for 20 years.

Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar cited Alam’s young age, no prior criminal record, and scope for reformation.

Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Bench cautioned that judges should not be “bloodthirsty” and that the death penalty must be reserved for the rarest of rare cases. 

It rejected the trial court’s view of Alam as a “veteran criminal,” finding the murder was linked to the dacoity, not a premeditated act.

[Aftab Alam v State of West Bengal]

The Calcutta High Court has restrained Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited from using the trade dress of its “ELITO” batteries, finding it deceptively similar to that of Exide Industries Limited.

The Court noted that the use of a red-and-white colour scheme, the “EL” mark, and a shattered “O” closely mirrored Exide’s battery design. 

Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur observed clear bad faith, including inconsistent legal positions and removal of promotional content. Holding that such imitation was intended to mislead consumers, the Court gave Amara Raja two months to comply with the restraining order.

[Exide Industries Limited v Amara Raja Energy And Mobility Limited]

The Calcutta High Court ruled that mere harassment or abuse at the workplace does not automatically attract the offence of outraging a woman’s modesty under Section 509 of the IPC.

Justice Dr. Kurnr observed that neither the FIR nor the statements recorded detailed any act, gesture, word, or sound meant to insult the complainant’s modesty.

The Court emphasised that intent to outrage modesty must be clearly alleged and supported by specifics, which were lacking here. The case was quashed, noting the internal complaints committee had also earlier exonerated the accused.