The court reinforced the necessity for specific allegations in dowry-related cases against family members, promoting amicable resolutions in matrimonial disputes.

JUDGMENT :

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 the application under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing the FIR in connection with Patna Sadar Buddha Colony P.S. Case No.329 of 2023 under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections3/4 of the DP Act.

3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the informant was married to Sumit Kumar on 19.11.2021 according to Hindu rituals, and from the wedlock. Soon after the marriage, the husband (petitioner no.1) started demanding more dowry and physically abused informant (O.P. No.2). On 01.01.2022, while intoxicated, the husband (petitioner no.1) allegedly beaten O.P. No.2 and she was taken to her father's house for treatment. The husband also took Rs. 2 lakh from informant’s father to open a furniture shop and continued to demand more dowry. The informant was allegedly forced out of her marital home to meet these demands. On the basis of the informant’s complaint the case bearing Patna Sadar Buddha Colony P.S. Case No.329 of2023 was registered.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioners is false and concocted. He further submitted that petitioner no. 1 is the husband and petitioner no.2 is the father-in-law, petitioner no.3 is the mother-in-law, petitioner no.4 is brother-in-law, petitioner no.5 is the sister-in-law of the opposite party no.2 respectively and petitioner no.6 is Nandoshi and petitioner no.7 is Nanand of the opposite party no.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioners is not specific rather general and omnibus and petitioner nos.2 to 7 are ready to tender apology and also go for settlement to buy peace of mind. Learned counsel further submitted that marriage is a sacred ceremony but little matrimonial skirmish suddenly erupts into hatred and the parties can be allowed to ponder to reconcile their dispute outside the court. He submitted that the matter be referred for mediation.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and the learned APP submitted that opportunity shall be given to the parties to reconcile their dispute amicably. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No. 2 also informed the Court that O.P. No. 2 agrees to settle the dispute by accepting a one-time settlement of Rs.15 lakhs to be paid to her by petitioners.

6. Heard the parties.

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. The law in respect of matrimonial dispute between husband and wife is well settled, at the same time, the Apex Court has held that the family members of husband should not be roped unnecessarily and face vexatious criminal trial.

9. From perusal of the F.I.R., it is evident that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner no.2 (the father-in- law), petitioner no.3 (the mother-in-law), petitioner no.4 (brother-in-law), petitioner no.5 (the sister-in-law), petitioner no.6 (Nandoshi) and petitioner no.7 (Nanand). In light of the recent judgment of Apex Court in the case of Navneesh Aggarwal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 963, I find that no case under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections