Family members should not face criminal charges without specific accusations, prioritizing justice and reconciliation.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 04-12-2025 At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that vide order dated 15.07.2025, application with respect to petitioner no.1, who is husband of O.P. No.2, was withdrawn and so far as petitioner no.3 is concerned, she had died and, as such, he presses the application only with respect to petitioner no.2.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

3. The petitioner no.2 has preferred the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 BNSS for quashing of the order dated 01.03.2019 passed in CI-1518/11, by the learned S.D.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur, whereby discharge petition dated 15.10.2018 filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 245 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

4. The prosecution story, in short is that marriage of the informant was solemnized with petitioner no.1, namely, Pravin Kumar Chaudhary on 09.03.2008 and on 15.01.2009, a male child was also born from the said wedlock. Immediately thereafter, petitioner no.1 (husband of the informant) and their in-laws started demanding rupees 1 lakh and for non-fulfillment of the demand, they subjected her to cruelty both both mental and physical. Aggrieved by the said act, the informant has filed the complaint on 16.08.2011 against them.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the discharge petition, filed before the learned District Court under Section 245 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 01.03.2019. It is submitted that petitioner no.2, who is father-in-law of O.P. No.2, aged about 95 years, is not responsible in any manner for the strained matrimonial relationship between his son and O.P. party no.2. General and omnibus allegation has been levelled against the petitioner no.2. He further submitted that no material was collected against the petitioner save and except that is alleged in the FIR. He further submitted that the material available on record don’t disclose any criminal element and, as such, the impugned order cannot sustain in the eye of law. Learned counsel further submitted that marriage is a sacred ceremony but little matrimonial skirmish suddenly erupts into hatred and the parties ponder to reconcile their dispute outside the court.

6. Learned APP submitted that opportunity shall be given to the parties to reconcile their dispute amicably.

7. Heard the parties.

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. 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.

10. 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