Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Dr. Sushil Kumar Purbey and Another – Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1234 of 2026 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3075 of 2024]
Decided On : 09-03-2026
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 341, 323, 498A and 34 read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Cruelty and dowry offences – Common intention – Cognizance of offences – Complaint preceded by persistent torture and cruelty, particularly on account of demands for a car and other valuable articles – Allegations levelled against sister-in-law and those against present appellants are, in all material particulars, identical – FIR does not assign any specific or overt act to either appellant; there are no particular dates, places, or individual acts attributed to them – Lone allegation that stands separately against present appellants is that they would quarrel – This, however, does not constitute a criminal offence and cannot, by itself, sustain cognizance of offences under Sections 341, 323, 498A and 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Act for which appellants have been summoned – Though this delay, standing alone, would not constitute sufficient ground for quashing criminal proceedings against appellants – However, viewed in conjunction with absence of any specific allegations attributable to them, delay lends credence to submission that criminal complaint against in-laws may have been instituted by way of a counter-blast to divorce proceedings initiated by husband – High Court erred in applying different standards to persons who stand on identical footing insofar as nature of allegations against them is concerned – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court set aside to the extent that it refused to quash criminal proceedings against present appellants – Criminal proceedings quashed insofar as present appellants are concerned. (Paras 3.10, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises from Judgment and order dated 8th August 2023 passed by High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 70355 of 2022. By impugned order, High Court quashed criminal proceedings against one of accused, namely, sister-in-law of complainant (respondent no. 3), while declining to extend same relief to present accused-appellants, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of complainant (respondent no. 2).
Findings of Court:
All proceedings arising out of L.N.M.U. P.S. Case No. 81 of 2022, registered under Sections 341, 323, 498A and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, are hereby quashed insofar as present appellants are concerned.
Result : Criminal appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 8th August 2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 70355 of 2022. By the impugned order, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against one of the accused, namely, the sister-in-law of the complainant (respondent no. 3), while declining to extend the same relief to the present accused-appellants, who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant (respondent no. 2).
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, shorn of unnecessary details, are as follows:
3.2. On 31st March 2021, the husband instituted a divorce petition against the complainant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19551 [In short “HMA”] before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga, Bihar.
3.3. On 18th March 2022, the complainant submitted a written report, on the basis of which First Information Report2 [In short “FIR”] No. 81/2022 was registered under Sections 341, 323, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 [Hereinafter referred to as “IPC”] and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 19614 [Hereinafter referred to as “Dowry Act”] at Police Station Lalit Narayan University, District Darbhanga, Bihar, against the husband, the two appellants herein, and the sister-in-law.
3.4. The complainant alleged that, soon after the marriage, she was subjected to persistent torture and cruelty, particularly on account of demands for a BMW car and other valuable articles, which she was unable to fulfil. It was further alleged that the husband physically assaulted her, and that on 18th March 2022, the accused persons, acting in concert, tied a sheet around her neck and strangulated her with the intent to cause her death.
3.5. The complainant additionally filed Complaint Case No. 790/2022 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur, Vaishali, Bihar, wherein she made further allegations against the same accused persons.
3.6. The appellants filed an application for anticipatory bail, which was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 12th April 2022.
3.7. Pursuant to the investigation arising out of FIR No. 81/2022, the police report was submitted on 5th June 2022.
3.8. The Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 7th September 2022, took cognizance of offences under Sections 341, 323, 498A and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act against the husband, the appellants herein, and the sister-in-law, in L.M.N.U. P.S. Case No. 81 of 2022.
3.9. On 23rd November 2022, the appellants, along with the sister-in-law (respondent no. 3), filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19735 [Hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”] seeking quashing of the order dated 7th September 2022, whereby the Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences.
3.10. The High Court, by the impugned order, partly allowed the petition for quashing, but only insofar as the sister-in-law of the complainant was concerned. The High Court held that the allegations against her were general and omnibus in nature, and therefore insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings. However, the petition was dismissed with respect to the present appellants being the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant with the High Court taking a view that prima facie case had been made out against them.
3.11. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appellants have approached this Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned counsel for the respondent-State, and the learned senior counsel for the complainant-Respondent No. 2 at length, and have also perused the material placed on record.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the High Court erred in confining the grant of quashing relief solely to sister-in-law, on the ground that the allegati
Cruelty and dowry offences – Different standards cannot be applied to persons who stand on identical footing.
Cruelty and dowry offences – Criminal prosecution cannot proceed on vague and omnibus allegations.
Matrimonial cruelty – Where matrimonial relationship has come to an end by way of divorce, and parties have since settled in their respective lives, criminal prosecution emanating from that past rela....
Cruelty and dowry offence – Court must guard against false implication of relatives of husband in such cases.
The allegations under Section 498-A IPC must be specific; general or vague allegations do not warrant criminal proceedings, protecting against misuse.
Criminal proceedings should not be sustained against distant relatives in matrimonial disputes and dowry cases without specific allegations of their involvement in the crime.
The court quashed proceedings against distant relatives under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, finding insufficient evidence to sustain charges.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
