Cell-tower data alone cannot establish an accused’s meeting or criminal instructions.

The petitioner, A3, was charged in a murder case arising from the killing of a young Scheduled Caste man.

The prosecution alleged that she had earlier contacted the deceased’s mother about the deceased’s relationship with her daughter and, after the killing, instructed her son (A1) to destroy evidence and take shelter at a quarry.

The alleged post-occurrence meeting and instructions were inferred principally from call-detail records and shared cell-tower coverage.

A3 sought to quash the final report under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Whether the materials, taken at face value, disclosed that A3 had participated in, abetted, or conspired in the principal offence, or had intentionally caused disappearance of evidence or harboured A1.

Whether the alleged telephone conversations with the deceased’s mother disclosed offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), or 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Court exercised its quashing jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to determine whether the prosecution materials, accepted at face value, disclosed the ingredients of the alleged offences.

For Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the Court identified the requirements of intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate within public view, and abuse by caste name within public view, respectively.

For Section 3(2)(v), it required a foundational basis connecting the accused to an underlying offence punishable with imprisonment for ten years or more.

The Court relied on Rahil v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), Prabhakar Kutty Shetty v. State of Maharashtra, and Kunwarpal v. State through SHO, P.S. Special Cell for the principles that cell-tower data generally indicates an approximate coverage area, not a person’s exact location or physical presence with another, and that call records alone do not establish the content or incriminating character of a conversation.

The statement of the deceased’s mother described requests between the two mothers concerning their children’s relationship, but did not support the final report’s characterisation of the conversations as threats or warnings; nor did it disclose caste-related words, an intent to humiliate on caste grounds, or communication in public view.

The shared tower data did not establish that A3 met A1, and the call records could not prove that she gave the alleged instructions.

The call to A4 was equivocal, and the prosecution materials did not otherwise show that A3 arranged concealment or intended to screen A1 from punishment.

The Court also found no material connecting A3 to a prior plan or agreement to commit the murder, or otherwise establishing the foundational basis required for Section 3(2)(v).

It allowed the petition and quashed the final report in S.C. No. 120 of 2025 insofar as A3 alone was concerned.

The trial against the other accused was to proceed uninfluenced by the Court’s observations, and the order did not preclude the trial court from exercising its power under Section 358 BNSS if the evidence later disclosed A3’s complicity.