Vague allegations and mere association with the husband cannot sustain criminal prosecution against third parties.

Opposite Party No. 2 lodged a complaint against her husband, the principal accused, and the petitioners, alleging prolonged physical and mental cruelty, an extra-marital relationship between her husband and petitioner no. 1, intimidation, extortion, and an attempt on 3 July 2025 to forcibly evict her from the matrimonial home.

The complaint further alleged that the husband, in collusion with the petitioners, removed certain belongings from the residence and threatened the complainant.

Rabindra Sarobar Police Station Case No. 80 of 2025 was registered on 6 July 2025 under Sections 85, 305, 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), corresponding to CGR Case No. 2086 of 2025.

The petitioners sought quashing of the proceedings, contending that they were neither the husband nor relatives of the husband, that the allegations against them were omnibus and unsupported by specific overt acts, and that the allegations of theft and intimidation were directed only against the husband.

The complainant opposed quashing on the ground that the investigation was at an initial stage and that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences requiring investigation.

Whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed an offence under Section 85 of the BNS against the petitioners, who were neither the husband nor relatives of the husband of the complainant?

Whether the FIR disclosed the commission of offences under Sections 305 and 351(3) of the BNS by the petitioners?

Whether Section 3(5) of the BNS could sustain the prosecution against the petitioners on the basis of alleged common intention and participation?

Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) to quash the proceedings at the investigation stage?

The Court applied Section 85 of the BNS, which criminalises cruelty to a woman by her husband or a relative of her husband; consequently, the offence cannot ordinarily be invoked against persons who do not fall within either category.

Relying on U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police, (2009) 6 SCC 757, the Court held that “relative” principally means a person related by blood, marriage or adoption, and does not include a girlfriend, associate, student or other unrelated person.

Section 305 of the BNS requires prima facie allegations that the accused dishonestly removed movable property from the complainant’s possession without consent.

Section 351(3) requires a threat of the specified serious injury or offence, accompanied by the requisite intention to cause alarm or compel the victim to act or refrain from acting.

Section 3(5) imposes constructive liability only where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention, requiring both common intention and participation in the underlying offence.

Under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the High Court may quash an FIR where, even accepting its allegations in their entirety, no cognizable offence is disclosed against the accused.

The Court held that Section 85 could not apply to the petitioners because none was the complainant’s husband or the husband’s relative by blood, marriage or adoption.

Although petitioner no. 1 was alleged to have an extra-marital relationship with the principal accused and the other petitioners were associated with her or with the principal accused, such relationships did not satisfy the statutory or judicial meaning of “relative”.

The Court did not treat the disputed school attendance record as conclusive, but found that the alibi issue was immaterial because the essential relationship required under Section 85 was absent.

As to Section 305, the FIR attributed the removal of the complainant’s belongings specifically to her husband, the principal accused, and did not allege that the petitioners themselves removed the property from her possession.

Similarly, the allegation of habitual physical violence and criminal intimidation was directed against the principal accused and did not identify any specific threat or intimidating act by the petitioners.

Since the FIR did not disclose a substantive offence committed by the petitioners, the allegation of common intention under Section 3(5) could not independently sustain the prosecution.

The general allegation that the petitioners acted “in connivance” with the husband lacked particulars of assistance, participation or acts done in furtherance of a common intention.

Applying the Bhajan Lal principles, the Court concluded that continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners would amount to permitting criminal process to operate on vague and non-specific allegations.

Accordingly, the Court quashed CGR Case No. 2086 of 2025 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, insofar as it concerned Purba Chatterjee, Ayan Mazumder, Surajit Biswas @ Surojit Biswas and Soham Dasgupta—the latter having been wrongly named in the FIR as “Souvik Das Gupta”.

The role of the principal accused, who was not before the Court, was expressly left unexamined.

CRR 5550 of 2025 was disposed of.