The court distinguished between actionable allegations against the husband and non-actionable vague claims against his relatives, allowing the trial on domestic violence to proceed against the husband while quashing charges against the in-laws.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. Since both the Criminal Miscellaneous Cases arise out of the same matrimonial relationship, involve identical parties, and emanate from a common factual matrix raising overlapping questions of law and fact, this Court deems it appropriate to hear and dispose of the same by a common order. For the sake of convenience, clarity, and orderly adjudication, CRLMC No. 3352 of 2025 is treated as the lead/main case, and the facts and pleadings therein are referred to unless the context otherwise requires.

2. In this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to quash the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 202/2024 and the consequential charge-sheet, contending that the prosecution is malicious, an abuse of process of law, and does not disclose any prima facie offence warranting continuation of trial.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2.1 The facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The marriage between the Petitioner (husband) and the Opposite Party (wife) was solemnized on 07.07.2021 as per Hindu rites during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, allegedly with restricted attendance in compliance with government guidelines. The marriage was later registered on 10.08.2021 under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(ii) The parties cohabited at different locations, including Mumbai and Pune, between December 2021 and December 2023, primarily due to professional commitments. There is no dispute that Petitioners No. 2 to 4 (parents-in-law and sister-in-law) were residing permanently in Delhi and not part of the matrimonial household.

(iii) On 04.12.2023, the wife left the matrimonial home in Pune. Thereafter, matrimonial relations between the parties ceased. Subsequently, the husband initiated divorce proceedings before the Family Court, Pune, on 19.01.2024.

(iv) On 12.03.2024, the wife lodged FIR No. 202/2024 at Chandrasekharpur Police Station, Bhubaneswar, alleging offences under Sections 294, 323, 498A, 406, 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the husband and his family members.

(v) Parallel proceedings were initiated by the wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (CMC No. 432/2024) before the JMFC-II, Bhubaneswar, along with a maintenance proceeding. The husband and his family sought quashing of the criminal case by invoking inherent jurisdiction.

(vi) During trial in the DV proceeding, evidence of PW-1 (wife) and PW-2 (her brother) was recorded, followed by defence evidence. After closure of evidence by both sides, the trial court rejected an application under Section 311 CrPC / Section 348 BNSS seeking recall of PW-1 for marking additional documents.

(vii) The present dispute therefore arises out of cross-litigation, where criminal prosecution under IPC and DP Act is sought to be quashed by the husband, while the wife challenges procedural orders passed in the DV proceeding.

II. PETITIONER’S (HUSBAND) SUBMISSIONS:

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The Petitioner contends that the criminal proceedings are a counterblast to the divorce petition filed e