30.7.2026 2 sb CRR 185 of 2026 With CRAN 2 of 2026 Sachiranjan Das & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Ms. Priyanka Sarkar Mr. Aditya Ratan Tiwari Mr. Amitabrata Hait Ms. Susmita Das …for the Petitioners Ms. Jeenia Rudra …for the O.P. no. 2 Mr. Imran Siddiqui Mr. Shivam Mishra …for the State In this application, the petitioners, who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the defacto-complainant have prayed for quashment of the proceeding being ACGR case no. 6649 of 2025, presently pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the opposite party no. 2 herein lodged an F.I.R. against her husband and also against the present petitioners and on the basis of such allegation, aforesaid criminal proceeding has been initiated, being Jadavpur Police Station case no. 167 of 2025 under Sections 85/316(2)/126(2)/3(5) of the BNS. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 3 being the married sister-in-law never resided with the defacto- 2 complainant and she was married in the year 2011 and she could not even attend the marriage of her brother, as at that time she was carrying. She further submits that a bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by the opposite party no. 2 are vague and omnibus. The only allegation levelled in the complaint is that the husband of the opposite party no. 2 (who is not the petitioner herein) harassed her and the petitioners herein have allegedly instigated him to do the same. However, no specific details or any particular instance of harassing her has been mentioned in the complaint. The petitioner’s counsel further submits that the charge under Section 316(2) of the BNS which prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal breach of trust does not attract in the present context as from a bare perusal of the seizure list, it is clear that the defacto-complainant has received her stridhan articles vide seizure dated 14.11.2025. Therefore, the essential ingredients to attract the criminal breach of trust has got no application in the present context as the petitioners were never entrusted with the property of the opposite party which could have been misappropriated by the petitioners. Merely because the articles were seized as shown by the petitioner no 3, does not indicate any entrustment. She further submits that the defacto- complainant admittedly left her matrimonial home on 14.5.2025 but the FIR was lodged on 31.10.2025 i.e. after a long lapse of five months and the written complaint is completely bereft of any explanation for such inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. 3 It is further submitted that the petitioners never resided with the defacto-complainant at her matrimonial home. The permanent residence of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 would reveal from the notice sent under Section 35(3) of the BNSS is at Tamluk, Purba Medinipur and thereby the Investigating officer even had acknowledged that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 resided separately from the defacto-complainant. She further submits that the ingredients of the offence either under Section 85/316(2)/126(2)/3(5) of the BNS are completely absent in the present case and the proceeding is a malicious prosecution, which if allowed to continue against the petitioners, would tantamount to nothing but mere abuse of process of the court. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2/defacto- complainant submits that the investigation could not proceed at its normal pace as the order of stay was granted by this court but the materials collected so far during investigation are sufficient to constitute offences alleged in the complaint and therefore, it is too early to come to a conclusion that further continuance of the impugned proceeding would be mere abuse of process of the court. Learned counsel for the State placed the case diary and submits that during investigation one seizure was made in connection with stridhan articles and the prosecution could examine only one witness during investigation namely, the father of the defacto-complainant. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and after perusing the materials collected during 4 investigation, it appears that it is not in dispute that the petitioner no. 3, who is the married sister-in-law is residing separately with her husband at Uttar Pradesh since 2011. In respect of other two petitioners namely, petitioner nos. 1 and 2, it appears that their permanent residence is at Tamluk, Purba Medinipur. Therefore, the omnibus allegations levelled against the petitioners appears to be inherently improbable. Moreover, in the written complaint and also in the recorded statement, the complainant and her father have not attributed any specific allegation against the petitioners in commission of the alleged offences under Section 85 of the BNS contemplating “cruelty” as defined under Section 86. The prosecution must disclose either willful conduct likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or harassment with a view to coercing her or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security. In the instant complaint, no such allegation has been levelled regarding any unlawful demand for dowry or valuable security. There is no allegation of any conduct likely to drive the complainant to commit suicide or cause grave physical or mental injury. Therefore, even if the allegations contained in the FIR are taken to be gospel truth still they are bereft of essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 85 of the BNS. So far as the allegation under Section 316(2) of the BNS is concerned, there is not even a whisper in the complaint regarding allegation of entrustment nor it is alleged anywhere that the petitioners have dominion over any property or there is any 5 allegation that they have dishonestly misappropriated or converted or dishonestly disposed of any such property. Therefore, the fundamental requirement of entrustment, which is sine qua non for constituting the offence of criminal breach of trust are ex facie absent. The allegation under Section 126(2) of the BNS in respect of wrongful restraint also does not contain even a whisper that any of the petitioners obstructed or restrained the complainant from moving in any direction. Therefore, I find that further continuance of the impugned proceeding qua the petitioners before the court below would be nothing but a mere abuse of process of the court. In view of above, CRR 185 of 2026 along with CRAN 2 of 2026 are allowed. The impugned proceeding being ACGR case no. 6649 of 2025, presently pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore is hereby quashed qua the petitioners namely, Sachiranjan Das, Sathi Das and Indubarna Das @ Mariyam Khan. Let the case diary be returned to the learned counsel for the State. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)