Can a husband’s alleged girlfriend, students or associates be prosecuted for matrimonial cruelty merely because they are named in the wife’s FIR? The Calcutta High Court has explained who can legally be treated as a “relative” under Section 85 BNS and when vague allegations cannot justify a criminal prosecution.

KOLKATA: The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against four persons who were booked along with a woman’s husband for alleged cruelty, theft and criminal intimidation arising out of a matrimonial dispute.

Justice Dr Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held that the four petitioners were neither the complainant’s husband nor his relatives by blood, marriage or adoption. Therefore, the essential requirement for prosecuting them for cruelty under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to the earlier Section 498A IPC, was missing.

The case arose from a complaint by a woman who alleged that she had faced prolonged physical and mental cruelty from her husband. She further alleged that her husband had been maintaining an extra-marital relationship with petitioner no. 1, Purba Chatterjee, since February 2025 and that the other petitioners acted with him to intimidate her, demand money and force her out of the matrimonial home.

On the complaint, the Police Station registered a case under Sections 85, 305, 351(3) and 3(5) BNS, corresponding to CGR Case No. 2086 of 2025.

The petitioners approached the High Court to quash the proceedings. They argued that the allegations were mainly against the husband and that they had been subsequently dragged into the matrimonial dispute through vague and omnibus allegations. They also contended that they were not legally covered by the expression “relative of the husband” for the cruelty offence.

The complainant opposed the plea, arguing that the investigation was still at an early stage and that an FIR cannot be expected to contain every minute detail. She also argued that electronic evidence, including call records and tower locations, was yet to be collected.

The High Court, however, found a fundamental legal problem with applying Section 85 BNS to these petitioners.

Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 757, the Court held that a girlfriend or associate cannot become a “relative” merely because of her relationship or association with the husband.

The Court quoted the Supreme Court:

“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 noted that petitioner no. 1, Purba Chatterjee, was stated to be a student of the husband and engaged in research work. Petitioner no. 2, Ayan Mazumder, was also his student. Petitioner no. 3 was Purba Chatterjee’s husband and petitioner no. 4 was their son. None of them was a relative of the complainant’s husband by blood, marriage or adoption.

The Court then separately examined the Section 305 BNS allegation relating to theft. It found that the FIR itself attributed the alleged removal of the complainant’s belongings to her husband, not to these four petitioners. Therefore, the theft provision could not be sustained against them.

The Court similarly examined Section 351(3) BNS, dealing with aggravated criminal intimidation. The relevant allegation in the complaint stated:

‘that the principal accused has been habitually perpetrating physical violence upon the complainant causing grievous hurt and endangering her physical and mental well-being’

The High Court found that this allegation was also directed against the principal accused—the husband—and not specifically against the petitioners. It therefore held that Section 351(3) BNS had no application against them.

The Court also rejected the attempt to impose common-intention liability under Section 3(5) BNS. It explained that the prosecution must show common intention and participation in the offence. Simply naming people in an FIR, without clearly stating their individual role in the alleged criminal acts, was not enough.

The High Court noted that the petitioners were mostly students and researchers working under the principal accused and had a constitutionally protected right to a peaceful and unblemished life unless sufficient prima facie material justified putting them through criminal proceedings.

Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court reiterated that quashing jurisdiction can be exercised where the FIR, even if accepted at face value, does not prima facie constitute an offence or disclose a cognizable offence against the accused.

Importantly, the High Court observed that the criminal case appeared to have arisen from matrimonial disharmony between the complainant and her husband. It said that the possibility of malicious or mala fide intention behind involving the petitioners could not be ruled out and stressed that criminal law should not become a tool for harassment, private vendetta or pressure.

Accordingly, the Court quashed Case against Purba Chatterjee, Ayan Mazumder, Surajit Biswas @ Surojit Biswas and Soham Dasgupta, who had been wrongly named as “Souvik Das Gupta” in the FIR. The Court did not examine proceedings against the husband because he was not before it in this revision.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Outsiders dragged into a matrimonial case: girlfriend, students, or associates are not “relatives” under Section 85 BNS.
• Naming someone is not enough: vague allegations without a specific role cannot justify prosecution.
• The theft allegation was against the husband; yet four others were also booked.
• Association is not common intention: section 3(5) Bns needs participation, not mere proximity.
• Matrimonial law cannot become a pressure weapon: The High Court warned against harassment, vendetta and misuse of criminal prosecution.