The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against four persons accused of subjecting a woman to cruelty, theft and criminal intimidation in connection with a matrimonial dispute, holding that the allegations in the FIR did not disclose the ingredients of the offences against them.

Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, while allowing a criminal revision petition filed by Purba Chatterjee and three others, observed that the petitioners were not relatives of the husband of the complainant and, therefore, an offence under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (earlier Section 498A IPC) could not be sustained against them.

The Court was hearing a complaint lodged by a woman alleging prolonged physical and mental torture by her husband. She alleged that her husband was maintaining an extra-marital relationship with petitioner no.1, Purba Chatterjee, and that the petitioners had acted in concert with her husband to intimidate her, extort money and force her out of the matrimonial home.

The FIR was registered at Rabindra Sarobar Police Station under Sections 85, 305, 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS.

The Court relied upon the Supreme Court's judgment in U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police, holding that a girlfriend or associate cannot be treated as a "relative" for the purpose of the cruelty provision.

Justice Mukherjee noted that the petitioners were not related to the principal accused by blood, marriage or adoption.

"In the absence of any statutory definition, the term 'relative' must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood," the Court noted, relying on the Supreme Court's interpretation in U. Suvetha.

The Court further observed that although petitioner no.1 was alleged to have been involved in an extra-marital relationship with the complainant's husband, that circumstance did not make her a "relative" of the husband for the purposes of Section 85 BNS.

The Court separately examined the allegation under Section 305 BNS concerning theft.

It found that the FIR itself attributed the alleged removal of the complainant's belongings to the principal accused, namely her husband. The allegation was that the husband, after attempting to force her out of the matrimonial home, unlawfully took away his belongings as well as articles belonging to the complainant.

"From the FIR it is abundantly clear that the complainant has attributed the entire allegation of theft at her dwelling house only against her husband/accused no.1 and not against any of the petitioners herein," the Court held.

Consequently, the Court held that Section 305 had no application against the petitioners.

The Court reached a similar conclusion regarding Section 351(3) BNS.

It noted that the FIR alleged that the principal accused had habitually perpetrated physical violence upon the complainant, causing grievous hurt and endangering her physical and mental well-being. There was, however, no specific allegation of criminal intimidation against the petitioners.

"Since the allegation in the FIR has been attributed against the principal accused No.1 only, the allegation of criminal intimidation under section 351 (3) has also got no application against the present petitioners," Justice Mukherjee held.

The Court also rejected the invocation of Section 3(5) BNS, which deals with constructive criminal liability where a criminal act is committed by several persons in furtherance of their common intention.

Justice Mukherjee held that merely naming the petitioners was insufficient. The FIR did not separately or clearly set out the role played by any of them in the alleged offences under Sections 305 or 351(3).

"Therefore, even if all the averment made in the FIR are taken to be correct, the case for prosecution under sections 85/305/351 (3)/3(5) is not made out against the present petitioners," the Court held.

The Court also considered the petitioners' contention that the allegations were vague and motivated. One of the petitioners, a teacher, relied on a school attendance register to contend that she was at work when the alleged incident occurred. The Court did not treat the attendance record as an unimpeachable document, but held that this issue did not alter the more fundamental fact that none of the petitioners was a relative of the principal accused.

Justice Mukherjee observed that the petitioners were "mostly the students and researchers working under the principle accused no.1" and had a constitutionally guaranteed right to lead a free, peaceful and unblemished life unless sufficient prima facie material existed against them.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and reiterated that the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction where an FIR does not prima facie disclose any offence or cognizable offence against an accused.

Finding that the allegations did not disclose cognizable offences against the four petitioners and that the case appeared to arise from the matrimonial discord between the complainant and her husband, the Court cautioned that criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to become an instrument of harassment, private vendetta or pressure.

Case:  Purba Chatterjee & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Case No: CRR 5550 of 2025

Click here to read order