AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 07-08-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned APP for the State.
The present application was initially filed for quashing the order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Darbhanga in Bahadurpur P.S Case No. 666 of 2022, whereby cognizance was taken under Sections 341, 323, 504, 498-A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘D.P. Act’). Subsequently, by way of an I.A No. 01 of 2026, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the learned SDJM, Darbangha in Bahadurpur P.S Case No. 666 of 202, whereby and whereunder charges have been framed against the petitioners under Sections 498A, 323, 341, 504 R/W 34 of the IPC against all the petitioners and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act against petitioner nos. 2 and 4.
The facts of the case are that the petitioners, along with other, are alleged to have mentally and physically harassed and tortured the opposite party no.2.
From perusal of record, the present matter is at the stage where charges have been framed and no further progress has been made, as the criminal proceeding was stayed vide order dated 16.03.2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 3085 of 2024.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted, at the outset, that the petitioners herein are the father-in-law, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law and cousin father-in-law of the opposite party no.2 and the allegations made in the First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as ‘FIR’) is absolutely of general and sweeping nature, without attributing any specific overt act against them. It is further submitted that the marriage of the opposite party no.2 was solemnized with the son of the petitioner no.1 on 02.05.2022, whereafter the opposite party no. 2 went to her matrimonial home on 11.05.2022 and stayed for a short period of nine days and so far as petitioner nos. 3, 4 and 5 are concerned, they also stayed with opposite party no. 2 for a very short time span and thereafter, they returned to their respective duties/ work and had no communication with the opposite party no.2, which shows that the allegation of cruelty against them is inherently improbable.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that the opposite party no. 2 was suffering from a mental illness and was unable to perform her basic chores without assistance. It is contended that this fact was not disclosed to the petitioners at time of marriage and, owing to her mental condition, there was no cohabitation between the opposite party no. 2 and her husband. It is also a fact that in this regard, the husband of opposite party no. 2 had earlier submitted an application to the police commissioner, Darbhanga as well as an informatory petition before the Chief Judaical Magistrate, Darbhanga on 26.11.2022 and 01.12.2022, respectively. Therefore, the present case has been filed with oblique motive merely to save their skin. The instant prosecution is malicious and vexatious proceeding arising out of matrimonial discord and as such, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against these petitioners. It is also a fact that the petitioners have been roped in the present case merely on the basis of their relationship with the husband of the opposite party no.2.
Lastly, the submission made by the counsel with regard to the framing of charges under Section 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act is that the charges under the said sections have been framed against husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law and not against the father-in-law, thereby itself negating the bald allegation of money transaction for fulfillment of demand of dowry in the bank account of father-in-law of opposite party no. 2.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 opposes the present application and submits that these petitioners have a substantial role to play in the cruelty which has been meted out to her. By way of a counter affidavit, the counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has further submitted that, contrary to the assertions made in the petition, the petitioners levelled various allegations against the opposite party no.2 and initiated certain court proceedings, but never took efforts to resolve the matrimonial difficulties, rather, they tortured the opposite party no. 2 and demanded dowry.
It is also contended that several payments were made to petitioner no. 1 by the brother of the opposite party no.2, before marriage of opposite party no.2 with the son of petitioner no.1 and subsequently also demands were made towards settlement of the matrimonial dispute. Despite such payments having been made, the opposite party no.2 was subjected to cruelty. Further, it is also submitted that though the son of the petitioner no.1 is employed in bank and earns sufficiently, he failed to comply with the order of co-ordinate bench directing payment of maintenance to the opposite party no.2.
After hearing the rival contentions and having gone through the contents of the FIR as also the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2, it appears that the allegations against these petitioners are general and omnibus in nature and the basic dispute appears to be between the opposite party no.2 and her husband. There are general and sweeping allegation against the petitioners of demanding Rs.10 lakhs as dowry, and casual reference has been made with regard to subjecting the opposite party no.2 to cruelty. The case in hand, appears to be totally frivolous, motivated, and a clear case of over-implication. It appears that the petitioners only stayed with opposite party no.2 for a short period of time and no complaint with regard to cruelty or otherwise, has been made by the opposite party no.2. Law has been settled by way of various judicial pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to criminalizing of domestic disputes without specific allegations and credible materials to support the same.
Adverting to the question of complicity of these petitioners, the allegations of subjecting the opposite party no.2 to any torture, are totally vague, general and omnibus as also sweeping in nature. It has been laid down by several judicial pronouncements that when the family relationships are sought to be brought within the ambit of criminal proceedings, the courts should be circumspect and judicious and should allow invocation of criminal processes only when there are specific allegations with supporting materials which clearly constitute criminal offences. All acts of a dissatisfied and disgruntled wife or daughter-in-law cannot be brought within the purview of section 498A of the IPC, as such, the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious while dealing with such cases by strictly examining whether there are specific allegations carved out, with instances against the perpetrators, as against generalized allegations. There is no doubt about the fact that importance has to be given to the victims of domestic violence, but all the family members and relatives ought not to be brought within the ambit of criminal prosecution in a general and sweeping manner.
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.”
This Court would also gainfully refer to the recent case of Dara Laxmi Narayana Vs. the State of Telangana reported in (2025) 3 SCC 735; wherein the Hon'ble Apex has made it clear that family members of the husband of the informant ought not to be unnecessarily roped into criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord. It was further held that in a case where the allegations are totally bereft of specific accusations particularly in the background that the relatives are even staying separately from the informant and her husband, allowing such malicious and motivated prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
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.”
Considering the case in its entirety, which is replete with absurdity of allegations including the general and sweeping nature of the allegations made in the F.I.R. as also non-pointing of materials in the order taking cognizance resulting in finding of prima facie case and also keeping the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in consideration, this court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceedings against family members, especially in the absence of specific and proximate allegations, serves no legitimate purpose and such vexatious criminal proceedings against the present petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of law and cause grave miscarriage of justice. Even with regard to the fact that charges have been framed, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down in the case of Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. reported in (2008) 2 SCC 561, that the same can be interfered with in appropriate cases if such charges are not brought home.
In view of the above, the orders dated 01.06.2023 and 20.09.2024 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Darbhanga in Bahadurpur P.S Case No. 666 of 2022, whereby cognizance has been taken, and charges have been framed, respectively, so far as it relates to the petitioners, stand quashed/set aside.
Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.