The Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed that criminal proceedings founded on non-cognizable offences without a prima facie case constitute an abuse of process and must be quashed. This judgment provides critical guidance on the threshold for initiating and continuing prosecutions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, particularly where allegations fall short of statutory ingredients.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Subham Ghosh, is an accused in GR Case No. 3451 of 2024, arising from Siliguri Police Station Case No. 907/24 dated 06.10.2024. The case originated from an altercation between local residents over the placement of banners related to a religious festival. The FIR initially included allegations of theft but was ultimately charged under Sections 126(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), both of which are non-cognizable offences.
Key Facts
- The incident occurred on 06.10.2024 in Siliguri, West Bengal
- The dispute arose over the erection of banners for a Puja celebration
- The petitioner and others allegedly approached the banner-holders in an excited state, used abusive language, and threatened to prevent the Puja
- No physical injury was reported or documented in the case diary
- The FIR was registered under Section 351 (criminal force) and Section 126 (threatening to cause injury to property or person) of the BNS
- No charge sheet was filed under any cognizable provision, including theft
- The private complainants did not appear in court despite service of notice
Procedural History
- 06.10.2024: FIR registered at Siliguri PS under Sections 126(2)/351(2) of BNS and theft
- [Date unspecified]: Investigation completed and charge-sheet submitted exclusively under Sections 126(2) and 351(2) of BNS
- [Date unspecified]: Petitioner filed application for quashing before Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri
- 23.03.2026: Hearing concluded; judgment delivered on same day
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: The petitioner’s counsel argued that Sections 126(2) and 351(2) of the BNS are non-cognizable offences and cannot form the basis of an FIR. Further, the facts alleged do not meet the minimal threshold for either offence. The absence of injury reports, witness corroboration, or any credible threat of violence renders the proceeding legally unsustainable.
For the State: The State’s counsel relied on statements recorded in the case diary but conceded there was no injury report. The State did not dispute that the offences charged were non-cognizable but contended that the court should not interfere at the pre-trial stage.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the entire proceeding under GR Case No. 3451 of 2024, arguing that continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of court.
The Legal Issue
Can criminal proceedings under non-cognizable offences under Sections 126(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be quashed at the pre-trial stage where the FIR and witness statements fail to disclose a prima facie case?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on settled principles that courts may quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC when the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute an offence. It was submitted that Section 126(2) requires a threat to cause injury to property or person with intent to cause alarm, and Section 351(2) requires application of criminal force with intent to insult or annoy. The alleged conduct - abusive language and a general threat to prevent Puja - does not meet the statutory definition of either offence. The absence of injury, physical contact, or credible threat negates the essential ingredients. Further, registration of an FIR for non-cognizable offences without a magistrate’s order is illegal.
For the Respondent
The State did not contest the non-cognizable nature of the offences but argued that the court should not interfere at this stage, as the matter was still under investigation. Counsel relied on witness statements in the case diary to suggest a dispute occurred, but admitted no injury report was filed and no evidence of actual criminal force or specific threat was recorded.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the allegations in the FIR and the statements recorded by the investigating officer. It noted that the entire basis of the case was an altercation over banners, involving verbal abuse and a general statement that the Puja would not be allowed. There was no allegation of physical contact, no injury report, no damage to property, and no specific threat of violence.
"Any further continuation of the impugned proceeding shall be an abuse of the process of Court."
The Court held that Section 126(2) of the BNS requires a threat to cause injury to property or person with the intent to cause alarm. The vague statement that "they would not be allowed to hold Puja" does not constitute a threat of injury under this provision. Similarly, Section 351(2) requires the application of criminal force with intent to insult or annoy. Mere abusive language, without any physical contact or gesture, does not satisfy this requirement.
The Court emphasized that the registration of an FIR for non-cognizable offences without prior magistrate authorization is procedurally invalid. Even if the FIR were valid, the facts do not make out a prima facie case under either provision. The absence of any corroborative evidence, injury report, or credible threat renders the proceeding legally unsustainable.
The Court further observed that allowing such proceedings to continue would subject the accused to unnecessary harassment and waste judicial resources. The principle that courts must prevent abuse of process under Section 482 CrPC was invoked to justify intervention at the pre-trial stage.
The Verdict
The Calcutta High Court quashed GR Case No. 3451 of 2024 arising from Siliguri PS Case No. 907/24. The proceedings under Sections 126(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are set aside. The Court directed that the impugned FIR be treated as null and void for lack of legal foundation. Urgent photostat certified copies of the order were to be supplied to the parties upon application.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Non-Cognizable Offences Cannot Be the Basis of FIR Without Magistrate Authorization
- Practitioners must challenge FIRs registered for non-cognizable offences under BNS without prior magistrate order under Section 155(2) CrPC
- Courts may quash such proceedings at the pre-trial stage even if investigation has concluded
- The absence of a magistrate’s order renders the entire proceeding void ab initio
Prima Facie Case Must Be Clearly Established for Non-Cognizable Offences
- Mere verbal abuse or general threats without specific intent to cause injury or alarm do not satisfy Sections 126(2) or 351(2) of BNS
- Injury reports and physical evidence are not mandatory, but absence of such evidence weakens the case significantly
- Courts will not permit prosecution based on vague or overbroad allegations that do not meet statutory definitions
Abuse of Process Doctrine Applies Even in Minor Offences
- The power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings is not limited to serious offences
- Courts have a duty to prevent harassment through legally unsustainable prosecutions
- This judgment reinforces that procedural irregularities and lack of prima facie case are sufficient grounds for quashing, regardless of the nature of the alleged offence
