Relatives Can't Be Put to Trial On 'General Abuse' Claims Alone

Source: Calcutta High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Uday Kumar of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Ashis Kumar Dutta & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2026) partly quashed criminal proceedings in a matrimonial cruelty case, holding that extended family members cannot be roped into trial solely on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations, and that courts must prevent the criminal process from being used for "wholesale implication" of relatives in matrimonial disputes. 

What was the Background of Ashis Kumar Dutta & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The petition was filed under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) by Ashis Kumar Dutta, a practising advocate, and his brother Tapas Kumar Dutta, seeking quashing of proceedings under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act arising out of Bantra Police Station case in Howrah. 
• The marriage between the husband and the complainant-wife had subsisted for nearly twelve years, during which the couple had twin daughters. 
• The dispute surfaced in March 2017 when the wife left the matrimonial home, alleging sustained physical and mental cruelty linked to dowry demands. 
• The wife alleged that she was assaulted and forced out after her family failed to pay ₹1 lakh for the purchase of a car, and she further accused the brother-in-law of drunken abuse and misappropriation of her stridhan. 
• The husband contended that the wife had voluntarily left the house and relied upon a written "no-complaint" declaration allegedly signed by her father on the same day, and had also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. 
• After investigation, police filed a charge sheet against both the husband and the brother-in-law. 
• The petitioners argued that the FIR was a retaliatory "counter-blast" to the husband's matrimonial proceedings and that the allegations against the brother-in-law were general and inherently improbable. 
• The State opposed quashing, contending that once a charge sheet was filed, disputed factual issues — including the genuineness of the "no-complaint" letter — must be tested at trial. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court referred to the caution expressed by the Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar against the growing tendency to rope in all family members in matrimonial disputes through vague allegations. 
• The Court observed that criminal liability must be "act-based" and not merely "status-based," and that relatives cannot be forced to undergo trial in the absence of specific overt acts attributed to them. 
• Applying this principle, the Court found that the allegations against the brother-in-law were "general and omnibus," lacking dates, particulars, or distinct acts of cruelty, and that continuing proceedings against him would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the case against him was quashed and he was discharged. 
• However, the Court declined to extend the same relief to the husband, noting that the complaint contained specific allegations of dowry demand and a dated incident of physical ouster. 
• The Court held that the "no-complaint" declaration relied upon by the husband was a defence document whose authenticity and surrounding circumstances must be tested through evidence at trial, and that it could not conduct a "mini-trial" or weigh defence material at the threshold stage when specific accusations disclosed a prima facie case. 
• The Court partly allowed the petition — quashing proceedings against the brother-in-law while directing the trial to continue against the husband in accordance with law. 

What is Section 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)? 

• Section 85 of the BNS corresponds to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and criminalizes cruelty by a husband or his relatives against a woman, prescribing punishment of imprisonment up to three years along with fine. 
• Under BNSS classification, the offence is cognizable only when information is given by the aggrieved woman or her blood/marriage/adoption relatives, or in absence of such relatives, by notified public servants of specified categories as determined by the State Government. 
• The offence under Section 85 BNS is non-bailable in nature and triable by a Magistrate of the first class, maintaining the serious legal consequences associated with matrimonial cruelty cases. 
• Section 86 BNS defines "cruelty" for the purposes of Section 85, encompassing two distinct categories of conduct that constitute the offence against married women. 
• The first category of cruelty under Section 86(1) includes any wilful conduct likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or health, whether mental or physical. 
• The second category under Section 86(2) covers harassment of the woman with intent to coerce her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands for property or valuable security, or harassment due to failure to meet such demands. 
• The BNS provisions maintain the essential elements and legal framework of the erstwhile IPC Section 498A while transitioning to the new criminal law structure, preserving the protective mechanism for married women against domestic cruelty.