Quashing of Criminal Proceeding for Absence of Mens Rea and Evidence in Malicious Child Assault Allegation

The petitioner (father) and Opposite Party No. 2 (mother) are embroiled in matrimonial and guardianship disputes.

Pursuant to a court order granting visitation rights, the petitioner met his 6-year-old son in court premises on March 1, 2025.

The complainant alleged that during the visit, the petitioner became "furious" when the child felt sleepy, dragged him toward the school gate, and assaulted him with a tennis ball.

Two days later, the complainant filed for suspension of visitation rights, which was granted on June 24, 2025.

An FIR was subsequently lodged on March 4, 2025, leading to a charge-sheet under Sections 126(2), 115(2), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The petitioner moved the High Court to quash the proceedings, alleging malicious prosecution.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR and materials in the charge-sheet prima facie constitute the offences of wrongful restraint, voluntarily causing hurt, or intentional insult under the BNS.

2. Whether the criminal proceeding was maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, justifying quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Section 126(2) (wrongful restraint), Section 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), and Section 352 (intentional insult) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The landmark principles established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which permits quashing where allegations are absurd, inherently improbable, or maliciously instituted.

The ratio from Hazi Iqbal Md. Vs. State of UP, emphasizing the court's duty to scrutinize FIRs more closely when they appear to be born out of personal grudge or matrimonial discord.

The court found significant material contradictions between the complainant’s application for suspension of visitation and the FIR regarding the nature of the alleged assault.

It noted that the "mens rea" or criminal intent required for the alleged offences was entirely absent, as the petitioner was simply exercising court-mandated visitation.

The court observed that the prosecution’s case rested solely on "interested witnesses"—the complainant's father and her lawyer—while no independent witnesses from the busy court premises were cited.

The "history of injury" in the medical report was based solely on the mother's statement and described the injury as "simple".

The court characterized the story—that a father would attack his child during a sanctioned visit—as inherently improbable and an attempt to sabotage the father-son bond arising from matrimonial malice.

The High Court allowed CRR 4122 of 2025 and quashed the proceedings in Burdwan P.S. Case no. 237/2025, ruling that the allegations, even if accepted, failed to meet the legal ingredients of the charged offences.