Back
Quashes FIR: Girlfriend Not 'Relative' Under Section 85 BNS for Cruelty
In a significant ruling, the has quashed criminal proceedings against four individuals, including a woman alleged to be in an extra-marital relationship with a complainant’s husband, holding that a girlfriend or associate does not qualify as a “relative” within the meaning of .
Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee allowed a criminal revision petition filed by Purba Chatterjee and three others, who were booked under Sections 85 (cruelty), 305 (theft), 351(3) () read with of the BNS.
Background of the Matrimonial Dispute
The case originated from a complaint lodged by a woman (opposite party no.2) against her husband, alleging prolonged physical and mental torture. She claimed her husband was maintaining an illicit relationship with petitioner no.1, Purba Chatterjee, since . The other petitioners—Ayan Mazumder, Surajit Biswas, and Soham Dasgupta—were respectively a student, the husband, and the son of petitioner no.1. The complainant alleged that the petitioners, acting in concert with her husband, engaged in systematic intimidation, coercion, and extortion, and on , attempted to forcibly evict her from her matrimonial home.
Based on the complaint, registered FIR No. 80 of 2025, leading to the impugned proceedings.
Petitioners’ Submissions: Vague Allegations and Misidentification
Counsel for the petitioners argued that even if the allegations were taken at face value, they did not constitute an offence under Section 85 BNS against the petitioners, as the provision applies only to the victim’s husband and his relatives by blood, marriage, or adoption. The petitioners were neither the husband nor his relative. They contended that the FIR contained bereft of specific overt acts, and that the inclusion of petitioner no.4 was based on a mistaken identity—his name was incorrectly given as “Souvik Das Gupta” instead of “Soham Das Gupta.” Additionally, petitioner no.1 relied on a school attendance register to show she was at work during the alleged incident.
Respondent’s Opposition: Fair Investigation Must Be Allowed
Opposing the quashing, counsel for the complainant argued that the FIR was not an encyclopedia and should not be expected to contain minute details. The complainant, a layperson, had lodged the complaint after enduring 27 years of marriage. The investigation was at a nascent stage, and electronic evidence such as call records and tower locations were yet to be collected. The misnomer in naming petitioner no.4 was a .
Court’s Legal Analysis: The ‘Relative’ Requirement Under Section 85 BNS
Justice Mukherjee scrutinized the applicability of each offence against the petitioners. For Section 85 BNS, the court emphasized that the essential ingredient is that cruelty must be inflicted by “the husband or any relative of the husband.” Relying on the ’s decision in , the court noted that a girlfriend or associate cannot be treated as a relative. “In the absence of any statutory definition, the term 'relative' must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood,” the court quoted.
Since the petitioners were not related to the principal accused by blood, marriage, or adoption, the charge under Section 85 failed.
No Theft or Alleged Against Petitioners
The court further examined and . It found that the FIR attributed the removal of property solely to the husband. “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. Similarly, the allegations of were directed only against the principal accused.
Under Section 3(5) Not Attracted
Addressing Section 3(5) BNS, the court observed that for , there must be evidence of and participation. The FIR did not specify the role played by any of the petitioners in the alleged offences. “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,” Justice Mukherjee concluded.
Key Observations from the Judgment
The court noted that the petitioners were “mostly the students and researchers working under the principle accused no.1” and had a constitutionally guaranteed right “to have a free peaceful and unblemished life, unless sufficient material is there against them.”
Applying the principles from , the court held that the FIR did not disclose a against the petitioners. It also found an element of , observing that the case appeared to be an outcome of matrimonial discord and that criminal prosecution should not be used as an instrument of harassment.
Court’s Decision
The quashed CGR Case No. 2086/2025 pending before the insofar as it concerned Purba Chatterjee, Ayan Mazumder, Surajit Biswas, and Soham Dasgupta. The revision petition was accordingly disposed of.
The ruling reinforces the principle that the definition of “relative” under cruelty laws cannot be stretched to include persons connected only by extra-marital relationships or professional associations.
