The Calcutta High Court dismissed the criminal proceedings against four petitioners, holding that the FIR did not disclose a cognizable offence against them because they are neither the husband nor a relative of the complainant’s husband, a prerequisite under Section 85 of the BNS Act. The judgment clarifies the scope of "relative" and the evidential threshold for quashing an FIR.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The defacto complainant (OP no.2) alleged continuous mental and physical torture by her husband (Accused no.1) and claimed that the petitioners - Purba Chatterjee, Ayan Mazumder, Surajit Biswas and Soham Dasgupta - conspired with the husband to evict her from her matrimonial home on 03 July 2025, committing theft and intimidation.
Key Facts
- February 2025: Petitioners allegedly maintained an illicit relationship with Accused no.1.
- 03 July 2025: Accused no.1, aided by petitioners, attempted to forcibly evict OP no.2 and allegedly stole her belongings.
- 06 July 2025: FIR (Rabindra Sarobar PS case no. 80 of 2025) registered under sections 85, 305, 351(3) and 3(5) of the BNS Act; CGR case no. 2086 of 2025.
- 03 July 2025: School attendance register shows petitioner no.1 was teaching from 10:30 am to 4:30 pm.
- Name error: FIR listed petitioner no.4 as “Souvik Das Gupta” instead of “Soham Das Gupta”.
- 27 years of marriage: OP no.2 lodged complaint after prolonged hardship.
Procedural History
- 23 June 2026: Petition filed seeking quash of FIR (CRR 5550 of 2025).
- 25 August 2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee.
Parties' Positions
- Petitioners: Argue that they are not husband nor relative of the complainant’s husband; the FIR is vague, contains errors, and lacks specific allegation against them.
- Opposite Party No.2 (OP no.2): Maintains that FIR must not be quashed; alleges intimidation, extortion and theft; contends that investigation is ongoing and electronic evidence is pending.
Relief Sought
Petitioners prayed for quashment of the FIR and dismissal of CRR 5550 of 2025.
The Legal Issue
Does the FIR, filed under sections 85, 305, 351(3) and 3(5) of the BNS Act, disclose a cognizable offence against the petitioners, given that they are neither the husband nor a relative of the complainant’s husband, and can the FIR be quashed at this stage?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- The petitioners are not "husband or relative" as required by Section 85; reliance on U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police and Another for definition of "relative".
- The FIR attributes theft and intimidation solely to the husband; no specific overt act is linked to petitioners.
- The school attendance record establishes alibi for petitioner no.1 on the date of alleged offence.
- Errors in naming petitioner no.4 are inadvertent and do not vitiate the complaint.
For the Opposite Party No.2
- Argues that FIR need not contain exhaustive particulars; investigation should proceed.
- Claims that petitioners acted in concert with the husband, constituting common intention under section 3(5).
- Emphasises the seriousness of alleged domestic violence and intimidation, urging continuation of investigation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court first examined the statutory construction of Section 85 of the BNS Act, which criminalises cruelty "by her husband or the relative of the husband". Referring to U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police and Another (2009) 6 SCC 757, the Court held that "relative" ordinarily includes persons related by blood, marriage or adoption and does not extend to a girlfriend or associate. Consequently, the petitioners, being a student, a researcher and a family member of the student, fall outside this definition.
"In the absence of any statutory definition, the term ‘relative’ must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Ordinarily it would include father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece, grandson or granddaughter of an individual or the spouse of any person. The meaning of the word ‘relative’ would depend upon the nature of the statute. It principally includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption."
The Court then turned to Section 305 (theft) and Section 351(3) (criminal intimidation). It observed that the FIR expressly attributes the theft and intimidation to the husband alone; there is no allegation that any petitioner removed property or made threats. Hence, the essential ingredients of these offences are absent with respect to the petitioners.
Regarding Section 3(5) (constructive liability), the Court noted that liability arises only when the accused act "in furtherance" of a common intention. Since the FIR does not allege any act by the petitioners that aided the husband, the requirement of "furtherance" is not satisfied. The Court cited Bhajanlal’s Case (1992) 1 SCC 335, emphasizing that the power under section 482 of the Code to quash an FIR is exercised only when the FIR does not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence.
The Court also addressed the procedural argument that the FIR is a “vague” document. It held that while an FIR need not be an encyclopedia, it must disclose a cognizable offence against the accused. Here, the FIR fails to do so for the petitioners. The Court further rejected the contention that the investigation is at a nascent stage, stating that the absence of prima facie material precludes continuation of the criminal process.
In sum, the Court found that the petitioners cannot be prosecuted under the cited sections, and the FIR does not meet the threshold for a criminal proceeding against them.
The Verdict
The High Court quashed the FIR (CGR case no. 2086/2025) and dismissed CRR 5550 of 2025. No investigation shall proceed against petitioners Purba Chatterjee, Ayan Mazumder, Surajit Biswas and Soham Dasgupta. The order is effective immediately and the petition is disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Definition of “Relative” Is Strictly Limited
- Practitioners must demonstrate a blood, marital or adoptive link when invoking domestic-violence provisions that require the offender to be a "relative" of the husband.
- Mere association or friendship will not satisfy the statutory requirement.
FIR Must Prima Facie Disclose an Offence Against the Accused
- Courts will quash an FIR where the complaint does not specifically allege an act by the named accused.
- General or omnibus allegations are insufficient to sustain investigation under sections like 85, 305 or 351.
Constructive Liability Requires Evident Participation
-
To invoke section 3(5), the prosecution must prove that the accused acted in furtherance of a common intention.
-
Absence of any overt act linking the accused to the principal offender defeats constructive liability.
-
Ensure FIRs name accused with specific allegations; otherwise, anticipate quash petitions.
-
When defending clients, gather alibi evidence (e.g., attendance registers) to rebut presence at the alleged scene.
-
Counsel should be prepared to cite U. Suvetha and Bhajanlal for definition of relative and standards for FIR quash.
