### Relative of Husband Under Section 80 BNS Limited to Relations by Blood, Marriage, or Adoption FACTS: The marriage between the deceased and Accused No. 1 (A1) took place in November 2024. Allegations of physical and mental cruelty, surveillance, and character assassination were made against A1 during their stay in the USA. Upon returning to India, the deceased was allegedly further humiliated by her in-laws (A2–A4) and their distant relatives (A5–A6). Following these events, the deceased committed suicide within five months of marriage, leaving a death note detailing the discord. A charge sheet was filed under Sections 80 (dowry death), 85 (cruelty), and 352 (insult) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). ISSUE: Whether distant relatives and the husband's family can be prosecuted under Sections 80 and 85 of the BNS when there is a proximity of suicide to the alleged harassment, and whether distant relatives qualify as "relatives" under the Act. HELD: The Court partially allowed the petitions. 1. Scope of "Relative": Following settled precedent (e.g., *State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh*), the Court held that the term "relative of the husband" in Sections 80 and 85 of the BNS is restricted to persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption. Consequently, proceedings against A5 and A6 (distant relatives) were quashed as they did not meet this definition. 2. "Soon Before Death": The Court reiterated that this is a relative term dependent on the facts of each case, implying a "proximity test" rather than a strict time limit. Given the immediate link between the alleged humiliation and the suicide, quashing proceedings against the husband and immediate in-laws (A1–A4) was refused. 3. Settlement in Serious Offences: The Court denied closure based on a settlement between the parties, noting that dowry death is a grave social evil that cannot be compounded or quashed solely on the basis of a private compromise.

The deceased (daughter of Respondent No. 3) married Accused No. 1 (Petitioner) on November 10, 2024

Shortly after moving to the U.S. to join her husband in February 2025, she returned to India on April 19, 2025, alleging matrimonial discord and cruelty

On April 23, 2025, Accused Nos. 2 to 6 (parents, brother, and distant relatives of A-1) visited the deceased to seek reconciliation, during which heated arguments occurred regarding her character

On April 24, 2025, the deceased committed suicide, leaving a death note detailing emotional neglect and surveillance by A-1

A charge sheet was filed under Sections 80 (Dowry Death), 85 (Cruelty), 352 (Insult), and 3(5) (Common Intention) of the BNS

The petitioners sought quashing of the proceedings, even attempting a compromise which the High Court rejected due to the gravity of the offence

Section 80 and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), noting they correspond to Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC

The principle from Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana, which established that "soon before" is a relative term requiring a "live link" rather than immediate proximity.

Regarding the definition of "relative," the Court followed State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and U. Suvetha v. State, identifying that penal provisions for dowry death apply only to persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption.

The Court observed that the marriage lasted only five months, and the death occurred within five days of the deceased returning to India

In analyzing the death note and witness statements, the Court found prima facie evidence of continuous mental and physical cruelty by Accused No. 1 (surveillance and character assassination) and humiliation by Accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4 just a day before the suicide

The Court rejected the "mini-trial" approach, holding that the "soon before death" requirement is satisfied by the "proximity test" of events on April 23

However, regarding Accused Nos. 5 and 6, the Court found they were "distant relatives" whose specific relationship (blood/marriage/adoption) was not established in the charge sheet

Applying the strict construction of "relative" from Gurmit Singh, the Court reasoned that these individuals could not be prosecuted under Section 80 or 85 BNS

Conversely, the proceedings against Accused Nos. 5 and 6 were quashed because they did not fall within the legal definition of "relatives" for the purposes of dowry death and cruelty charges.

The Court dismissed Writ Petition No. 18828/2025 (Accused No. 1) and partially allowed Writ Petition No. 31907/2025.