1. A written complaint was lodged by opposite party no. 2 (in short OP no.2) herein against the petitioners interalia stating that the defacto complaint/OP no.2 got married to the accused no.1 (who is not the petitioner herein). The petitioner no.1 herein allegedly maintained an illicit relationship with the said husband of OP no.2 i.e. accused no.1 since February, 2025. The petitioner no.3 and petitioner no.4 herein are the husband and the son of the petitioner no.1, whereas the petitioner no.2 is the person employed by the husband of the OP no.2. The OP no.2 in her complaint specifically alleged that she was subjected to continuous mental and physical torture by her husband for a considerable period of time. It is further alleged that all the accused persons have been engaging in systematic intimidation, coercion and extortion by demanding exorbitant amount of money under threat of physical violence. On 03.07.2025 the accused no.1 along with petitioner no.2 acting upon the instructions of the other petitioners forcibly attempted to evict the OP no.2 from her matrimonial home and in course of the incident, the husband /accused in connivance with the petitioners committed theft of the belongings and valuable items of the OP no.2 and unlawfully removed the same from her possession. All the accused persons used to visit her residence and allegedly conspired with an intention to intimidate and extort money. It is further alleged that persistent physical violence has caused grievous injuries and has endangered her physical and mental well-being.

2. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint Rabindra Sarobar PS case no. 80 of 2025 dated 06.07.2025 under section 85/305/351(3)/3(5) of the BNS 2023 corresponding to CGR Case no. 2086 of 2025 was registered for investigation against the accused no.1/husband of the complainant and also against the petitioners herein.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety the same do not constitute offence under section 85 of the BNS against the petitioners herein as alleged offence can be attributed only to the victim’s husband and his relatives by blood, marriage or adoption. The petitioner herein are neither the husband nor relative of the husband of defacto complainant.

4. He further submits that the allegations in the FIR are primarily directed against the husband of the defacto complainant i.e. accused no.1. The allegations against the present petitioners suffers from inherent improbabilities and is evidently motivated by malafide intention to harass the petitioners. The allegations are omnibus in nature and bereft of particulars and fails to disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against the present petitioners. The allegations levelled in the complaint are nothing but an afterthought and a manufactured version, lodged only with the intent to falsely implicate the present petitioners.

5. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioners that the defacto complainant had earlier lodged a complaint against her husband but in the earlier narrative made against her husband, no reference whatsoever was made to the present petitioners, which shows that they were sought to be implicated only at a later stage out of malafide and vindictive intent. Therefore the instant proceeding is nothing but an afterthought and has been lodged with the intent to falsely implicate the present petitioners. Petitioners further contention is that the School Attendance Register dated 03.07.2025, clearly demonstrates that the petitioner no.1 was discharging her professional duties as an Assistant Teacher from 10:30 am. to 4:30 PM which disproves her physical presence at the scene of her alleged occurrence. The FIR contains sweeping, general allegations without attributing any specific overtact or criminal role to the petitioners. Petitioner no.2 an