Purnendu Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. The petitioners have preferred application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 BNSS for quashing of the order dated 14.10.2025 passed in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No.125/2021 by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kaimur at Bhabhua, whereby discharge petition dated 15.09.2025 filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 250 of BNSS was dismissed.

3. The prosecution story, in short is that marriage of the informant was solemnized with one Azami Mohammad Meraj Khan/the son of petitioner no.1 (father-in-law of O.P. No.2) on 31.05.2025 and at the time of marriage, her father gave Rs.3,50,000/- for purchasing the home appliances and Rs.3,00,000/- for purchasing the ornaments. Two months after the marriage, her husband and in-laws started demanding a Baleno car in the form of dowry, which was not fulfilled by her father and for non-fulfillment of the demand, they subjected her to cruelty both mental and physical. In the meantime, the informant became pregnant but it resulted into miscarriage. Informant has further alleged that her brother-in-law/petitioner no.2 on 12.12.2020 tried to rape her but somehow she managed to flee away. Aggrieved by the said act, the informant has filed the FIR on 26.06.2021 against them just one year after the strained marriage.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the learned District Court before dismissing the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioners failed to consider that the offence as alleged is not against the society. He further submitted that even considering the offence as alleged, material available on record don’t disclose any criminal element and without considering this aspect, the impugned order becomes unsustainable in the eye of law. He further submitted that the petitioner no.1 is father-in-law and petitioner no.2 is brother-in-law of O.P. No.2 and there is general and omnibus allegation against them. So far as allegation against petitioner no.2 of trying to commit rape with the informant is just ornamental in order to implicate him. Learned counsel further submitted that marriage is a sacred ceremony but little matrimonial skirmish suddenly erupts into hatred but the same can be resolved, if the parties are given opportunity to ponder to reconcile their dispute outside the court.

5. Heard the parties.

6. The law in respect of matrimonial dispute between husband and wife is well settled at the same time, the Apex Court recently in the case of Navneesh Aggarwal & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 963 [: 2025 (5) BLJ 34 (SC)] has held that the family members of husband should not be roped unnecessarily and face vexatious criminal trial.

7. It is commonly seen in the society that the entire family members, as well as, relatives are made accused along with the husband to face criminal prosecution. The Apex Court has demarcated the manner in which the complaints are entertained by the learned District Court.

8. Recently also, the Apex Court in the case of Mange Ram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.10817 of 2024), in paragraph nos. 25, 31 and 32 has reiterated that in cases, particularly, related to dowry, opportunity be given to the parties first to reconcile, which inter alia are as follows:—

“25. This Court, in Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735, has made it clear that family members of the husband ought not to be unnecessarily roped into criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord. The Court observed that it has become a recurring tendency to implicate every member of the husband’s family, irrespective of their role or actual involvement, merely because a dispute has arisen between the spouses. It was further held that where the allegations are bereft of specific pa