The court emphasized the protection against misuse of criminal law in matrimonial disputes, quashing the order against family members lacking specific allegations.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 16-12-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2 The petitioners have preferred the application under Section 4 82 Cr.P.C. / 528 BNSS for quashing of the order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in Korha P.S. Case No.171 of 2023 whereby the he has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 4 98A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 /4 of the DP Act.

3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the O.P. No.2 was married to the petitioner no.1 on 03.07.2022 according to Hindu rites. The petitioner no.2 is the father-in-law and the petitioner no.3 is the mother-in-law of the O.P. No.2 respectively. At the time of marriage, father of O.P. No.2 has given Rs.3 lakhs in cash and ornaments to the petitioners. After marriage, O.P. No.2 lived at her matrimonial home for about 25 days, during which her husband and in-laws allegedly subjected her to mental and physical cruelty and demanded an additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs. When the informant was unable to meet the demand, she was allegedly driven out of her matrimonial home. Since then, she has been residing at her parental home.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the learned District Court has not considered that the allegation is not against the society. He further submitted that the material available on record don’t disclose any criminal element and without considering this aspect learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in Korha vide order dated 18.09.2024 has taken cognizance under Sections 4 98A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 /4 of the DP Act against the petitioners. Learned counsel further submitted that marriage is a sacred ceremony but for little matrimonial skirmish between husband/petitioner no.1 and wife/O.P. No.2, the petitioner nos.2 and 3 are facing criminal prosecution for the reason they are in-laws. The learned District Court has not considered this aspect, which calls for interference of this Court.

5. Per contra, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the opposite party no.2 is being harassed by the petitioners and, as such, the present quashing application is fit to be dismissed.

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 recently in the case of Navneesh Aggarwal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 963 has held that the family members of husband should not be roped unnecessarily and face vexatious criminal trial.

9. 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 and 31 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. T