Supreme Court: While considering this appeal revolving around a criminal case arising from a marital dispute, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., upon perusing the FIR filed against the in-laws, noted that the lone allegation that stood separately against the father/mother-in-law (appellants) vis-a-vis allegations levelled against sister-in-law, was that the appellants would quarrel with the estranged daughter-in-law (complainant). The Court pointed out that quarrelling does not constitute a criminal offence and cannot by itself, sustain cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 498-A and 34, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Dowry Act).
Background and Legal Trajectory:
The complainant married the appellants’ son in July 2019. In 2021, the husband instituted a divorce petition against the complainant under Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Thereafter, in 2022, the complainant registered an FIR under Sections 341, 323, 498-A and 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Act against the husband, the appellants herein, and the sister-in-law, alleging that she was subjected to persistent torture and cruelty, particularly on account of demands for a BMW car and other valuable articles. The complainant further alleged that the husband physically assaulted her, and that they also strangulated her with the intent to cause her death.
The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of against the husband, the appellants and the sister-in-law. Thereafter, the appellants and the sister-in-law filed a petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashment of the Judicial Magistrate’s cognisance. Vide the impugned order, Patna High Court partly allowed the petition for quashing, but only insofar as the sister-in-law of the complainant was concerned, holding that the allegations against the sister-in-law were general and omnibus in nature. However, the High Court declined to grant quashment to the appellants, opining that prima facie case had been made out against them.
Court’s Assessment
Perusing the facts and contentions raised by the counsels for the parties, the Court opined that the High Court erred in dismissing the appellants’ quashment petition and restricting the relief only to the sister-in-law.
Examining the FIRs filed against the appellants and the sister-in-law, the Court pointed out that the allegations levelled against the sister-in-law and those against the appellants were identical and the FIR did not assign any specific or overt act to either appellant. The only thing different in the allegations were that the complainant had alleged that the appellant quarrelled with her. Upon this, the Court clarified that quarrelling with daughter-in-law is not a criminal offence and cannot sustain cognisance under provisions of IPC and Dowry Act.
The Court pointed out that standard applied by the High Court in quashing proceedings against the sister-in-law, on the ground that the allegations against her were general and omnibus, applied with equal force to the appellants; thus, there was no principled basis for distinguishing between them.
The Court further noted that the complainant lodged an FIR in 2022, i.e., one year after the husband filed for divorce. The Court stated that though this delay, standing alone, would not constitute a sufficient ground for quashing the criminal proceedings against the appellants. However, viewed in conjunction with the absence of any specific allegations attributable to them, the delay lent credence to the contention that the criminal complaint against the in-laws may have been instituted by way of a counter-blast to the divorce proceedings initiated by the husband. “When these two considerations are read together, we are satisfied that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present appellants cannot be sustained.”
The Court clarified that its observations in the present case have been confined to the question of the maintainability of the criminal proceedings against the appellants and must not be construed as an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case as a whole. It was noted that the husband did not seek any quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against him.
The Court held that the High Court erred in applying different standards to persons who stood on an identical footing insofar as the nature of the allegations against them was concerned. Since the allegations against the appellants and the sister-in-law were same in substance, the High Court’s reasoning that led to quashing the proceedings against the sister-in-law should have led to the quashing of proceedings against the appellants as well.
Therefore, the impugned order to the extent that it declined to extend relief to the appellants, was set aside. Thus, the Court quashed proceedings against the appellants for offences under Sections 341, 323, 498-A and 34, IPC read with Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Act.
[Dr Sushil Kumar Purbey v. State of Patna, SLP(CRL.) NO.3075/2024, decided on 9-3-2026]
*Judgment by Justice Vikram Nath
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Lal Babu Singh, Adv. Mr. Rana Prashant, Adv. Mr. Akash Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mahender Rathour, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Bharat Sangal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hemant Kumar Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Nagarkatti Kartik Uday, AOR Mr. Anshul Narayan, Addl. Standing Counsel, Adv. Mrs. Vineeta Singh, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Harsh, Adv. Mr. Prem Prakash, AOR