AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 24-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned APP for the State.
By way of the present application the order dated 31.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Begusarai in Cr. Revision No. 134 of 2021 whereby and whereunder, the order dated 26.03.2021 was set aside is under challenge and further prayer is to quash the order dated 13.12.2023, whereby cognizance has been taken against the present petitioner in Complaint Case No. 427c of 2021 under Sections 323, 341, 504 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’).
The short facts of the case emanating from the complaint filed by the opposite party no. 2 is that the petitioner along with co-accused persons are alleged to have subjected opposite party no. 2 to cruelty.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, at the outset, that the present petitioner happens to be the unmarried sister-in-law of the complainant/opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted that the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 with her husband i.e. the brother of the petitioner was solemnized in the year 2018 and bare perusal of the contents of the complaint petition and especially the S.A. of the complaint would reveal that there are general, omnibus and sweeping allegations against the husband and the other family members and with regard to the present petitioner, there is only one line in the S.A. stating that the sister-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 was at TCS and she also used to torture. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there is no specific date, time or any occasion mentioned in the entire complaint in order to even establish the presence of the petitioner in the matrimonial household of the opposite party no. 2 rather it is the specific case of the petitioner that she was employed with the TCS and was holding a prestigious position posted at the relevant time at Trivandrum (Annexure-5 is the joining letter dated 18.05.2018 brought on record) and now at Hyderabad. It is thus submitted that she was in no way involved in day to day affairs of the matrimonial life of the complainant and her husband and her visits has only been occasional.
Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 wherein specifically the case of the sister-in-law was dealt with and the Hon’ble Apex Court had stated in clear and unequivocal terms that mere causal reference to the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute, in the absence of specific allegations regarding their active involvement, would not justify taking of cognizance as against them. In the present facts of the case, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra (supra) is squarely applicable as no specific or proximate allegations have been carved out as against the present petitioner in the entire complaint or in the S.A. of the complainant.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, the complainant opposes the present application by pointing out the fact that at the stage of the cognizance, the merits of the allegations are not to be looked into and only a prima facie has to be seen. As such, he has submitted that there is no illegality in the order taking cognizance and it warrants no interference.
I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and upon perusal of the entire materials on record including the complaint and the S.A. of the complainant. This court has also noticed the fact that initially cognizance was not taken against the petitioner on 26.03.2021 (Annexure-4) and no summons were issued as against her but subsequently by way of the revisional order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Begusarai in Cr. Revision No. 134 of 2021 by an order dated 31.01.2023, the matter was remitted back to the learned Magistrate for recording a reason as to why the name of the petitioner, who was opposite party no. 9, was left out in the impugned order without giving any reason regarding not finding prima facie case against her. On this ground alone, the order taking cognizance was not found sustainable and was set aside and a direction was given for passing an order afresh on the material available on record in accordance with law.
Pursuant to the above-mentioned revisional order dated 31.01.2023, the order dated 13.12.2023 was passed by the learned Magistrate and this time, based on the same materials, cognizance was taken against the present petitioner under Sections323, 341, 504 and 498A of the IPC and summons were issued thereunder.
It appears from the aforesaid order dated 13.12.2023 that S.A. of the complainant and the facts deposed by the inquiry witnesses was considered to make out a prima facie case against the petitioner. Upon reading of the S.A. of the complainant, it appears that at only one point in paragraph-3 it has been stated that her sister-in-law, who was in TCS also used to torture her while opposite party no. 2 was living at Kolkata. So far as the inquiry witnesses are concerned, E.W.1 has made a specific reference to the name of the petitioner in paragraph-3 of her statement in a general and omnibus manner. E.W.2 has also taken the name of the petitioner in paragraph-2 along with others in a general fashion by stating that they used to trouble the opposite party no. 2.
It is clear from a perusal of all these documents that the petitioner, who is the unmarried sister-in-law and who has been employed with the TCS and has been mostly remaining at her place of work, has been dragged in as an accused in the present case with causal and general reference of disturbing or troubling the opposite party no. 2. No specific instances or time have been indicated with regard to any cruelty being inflicted on the opposite party no. 2 by this petitioner. It also appears that the action which has been attributed to the present petitioner also cannot be brought within the ambit of cruelty as envisaged under Section 498A of the IPC.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of several judicial pronouncements has time and again cautioned the courts to be extremely conscious and circumspect in cases involving general and casual references to the relatives of the husband before allowing the prosecution to continue as against them. It has rather been stated that the inherent powers of the courts ought to be invoked and exercised in favour of such accused persons against whom allegations are totally general and sweeping in nature and who are not even staying along with the informant and her husband and thus have no concern with their day to day affairs.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after having considered all earlier judgments, in the case of Kahkashan Kausar & Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Ors reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, rendered in connection with quashing of prosecution against relatives with generalized allegations, held that such persons ought not to go through the rigors of the prosecution and trial as an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused. Paragraph 21 of the above-mentioned judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar (supra) is being quoted hereunder:
"21.Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the appellant-accused, it would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial i.e. general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this Court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged.”
The adverse effects of criminalizing of domestic disputes without specific allegations to support the same have also been very recently considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geddam Jhansi & Anr. Vs. State of Telangana & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 263 where their lordships have also noticed a growing tendency to implicate other members of the family who are not connected with the allegation of harassment and torture and a further tendency to exaggerate allegations giving them a criminal colour. Paragraphs 31 and 32 of the above-mentioned case of Geddam Jhansi (supra) are quoted hereunder: -
“31.Invoking criminal process is a serious matter with penal consequences involving coercive measures, which can be permitted only when specific act(s) which constitute offences punishable under the Penal Code or any other penal statute are alleged or attributed to the accused and a prima facie case is made out. It applies with equal force when criminal laws are invoked in domestic disputes. Criminalising domestic disputes without specific allegations and credible materials to support the same may have disastrous consequences for the institution of family, which is built on the premise of love, affection, cordiality and mutual trust. Institution of family constitutes the core of human society. Domestic relationships, such as those between family members, are guided by deeply ingrained social values and cultural expectations. These relationships are often viewed as sacred, demanding a higher level of respect, commitment, and emotional investment compared to other social or professional associations. For the aforesaid reason, preservation of family relationship has always been emphasised upon. Thus, when family relationships are sought to be brought within the ambit of criminal proceedings rupturing the family bond, courts should be circumspect and judicious, and should allow invocation of criminal process only when there are specific allegations with supporting materials which clearly constitute criminal offences.
32.We have to keep in mind that in the context of matrimonial disputes, emotions run high, and as such in the complaints filed alleging harassment or domestic violence, there may be a tendency to implicate other members of the family who do not come to the rescue of the complainant or remain mute spectators to any alleged incident of harassment, which in our view cannot by itself constitute a criminal act without there being specific acts attributed to them. Further, when tempers run high and relationships turn bitter, there is also a propensity to exaggerate the allegations, which does not necessarily mean that such domestic disputes should be given the colour of criminality.”
Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner is an unmarried sister-in-law of the complainant/opposite party no. 2, who has been implicated with general and omnibus allegations, this Court finds no justification in allowing the present criminal prosecution to continue as against her.
As such, the orders dated 31.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Begusarai in Cr. Revision No. 134 of 2021 whereby and whereunder, the order dated 26.03.2021 was set aside and further the order dated 13.12.2023, whereby the cognizance has been taken against the present petitioner in Complaint Case No. 427c of 2021 stands quashed.
Accordingly, the present application is allowed.