Mere presence with an accused does not establish abetment, conspiracy, or wrongful confinement.

Respondent No. 2, the complainant, was the husband of Archana Bhattacharjee; the petitioner was her elder brother.

Under a custody order dated 28 March 2024, Archana could visit the parties’ minor child on Sundays but was required to return him before sunset.

The complaint alleged that on 6 October 2024 she took the child and failed to return him.

The petitioner was named as accused No. 3, and the Magistrate took cognizance against him under Sections 49, 61(2), 127(4) and 127(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), noting that he was allegedly seen with Archana and the child in a car on the date they went missing.

The petitioner sought to quash the cognizance order insofar as it concerned him, arguing that no material disclosed the elements of the alleged offences.

1. Whether the allegations and materials disclosed a prima facie basis to proceed against the petitioner under Sections 49 and 61(2) of the BNS for abetment and criminal conspiracy?

2. Whether those materials disclosed the petitioner’s participation in wrongful confinement sufficient to proceed under Sections 127(4) and 127(6) of the BNS?

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash proceedings where allegations, accepted at face value, fail to disclose the essential ingredients of an offence; the Court must not conduct a mini-trial or decide the ultimate merits.

Section 49 of the BNS concerns punishment for abetment where the act abetted is committed, while Section 61(2) punishes criminal conspiracy, which requires an agreement to commit an illegal act or an act made illegal by illegal means; conspiracy may be inferred from circumstances, but those circumstances must connect the accused to the agreement.

Sections 127(4) and 127(6) address distinct aggravated forms of wrongful confinement—confinement for ten days or more, and confinement in circumstances intended to conceal the person or place of confinement, respectively—and require a prima facie basis for the accused’s participation.

Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420, requires judicial application of mind to the allegations and materials; CBI v. Aryan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 292, and Abhishek Singh v. Ajay Kumar, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 675, caution against a mini-trial at the quashing stage.

The Court distinguished the allegation that Archana took and failed to return the child from the material against the petitioner.

His relationship with Archana and his alleged presence with her and the child in a car were relevant circumstances, but the impugned order identified no further specific act connecting him to instigation, intentional aid, an agreement to commit an offence, or participation in wrongful confinement.

The Court held that the car-sighting allegation, standing alone and without further connecting material, did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences charged.

This assessment addressed the legal sufficiency of the allegations, not their truth or evidentiary weight at trial.

It allowed the petition and quashed the cognizance order dated 22 September 2025, together with consequential proceedings, insofar as they related to the petitioner.

Proceedings against the other accused were left unaffected.