FIR Allegations Prima Facie Disclose Offence Under BNS Section 85; Quashment Not Warranted.

The petitioner, Mohit Kumar Mandal, filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023, seeking to quash an FIR (Gandey P.S. Case No. 03 of 2026) and the entire criminal proceeding against him.

The FIR was registered for offences punishable under Section 85 of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act.

The informant alleged that the petitioner, after solemnizing marriage with her, deserted her at Ruxkuti and returned to his own house at Jagadih.

She claimed that when she contacted him, his family members threatened her and made a dowry demand of Rs. 2,00,000/-, a motorcycle, and a bed.

The informant further alleged that the petitioner, aged 22 years, was not willing to keep her and intended to marry another woman.

The petitioner, however, contended that he had not solemnized marriage with the informant, and his age was 18 years.

He also argued that there was no specific allegation against him for the offence under Section 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the dowry demand was against his family members, not him.

The investigation was ongoing, and no charge sheet had been submitted at the time of the petition.

1. Whether the FIR and the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner in Gandey P.S. Case No. 03 of 2026 should be quashed.

2. Whether a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner under Section 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The court primarily applied Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023, which grants the power to quash an FIR and criminal proceedings.

It also considered Section 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (formerly Section 498A of the IPC) related to cruelty.

The principles regarding quashing criminal proceedings, particularly at a nascent stage when the contents of the FIR are to be considered true, were implicitly applied.

The court also referenced a previous judgment in Arvind Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand Anr. (2025:JHHC:32784) regarding dowry demands by in-laws.

The court analyzed the allegations in the FIR, noting the direct and specific claim that the petitioner harassed the informant by deserting her at Ruxkuti and showed eagerness to marry another woman while their marriage was subsisting.

This conduct, the court reasoned, was intended to coerce the informant to meet the dowry demands made by the petitioner's family and was likely to cause grave injury to her mental health.

The court found that the petitioner's contentions regarding his age and denial of marriage were matters of defence to be taken during investigation or trial, and not grounds to quash the proceedings at this preliminary stage.

The court emphasized that, if the contents of the FIR are accepted as true at this stage, a prima facie case under Section 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is established against the petitioner.

The court distinguished the precedent cited by the petitioner (Arvind Kumar), as the current case involved direct allegations of the petitioner's conduct contributing to the harassment and dowry demands, even if the demands were made by family members.

The court concluded that, considering the contents of the FIR to be true, a prima facie offence punishable under Section 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was made out against the petitioner.

Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous petition was dismissed for being without merit.