Matrimonial disputes are private conflicts not inherently harmful to society; unnecessary criminalization of relatives is discouraged.

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

2. The petitioners have preferred application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 18.06.2024 passed by learned A.C.J.M.-cum- Sub Judge-VIII, Rohtas at Sasaram in Mahila P.S. Case No. 47 of 2023, by which learned A.C.J.M.-cum-Sub Judge-VIII, Rohtas at Sasaram, has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 323 , 498 A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section

3/4 of the D.P. Act .

3. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant was married to one Rashid Zafar on 23.10.2021 and out of the wedlock, the informant and her husband have been blessed with a girl child, who is aged about 6 months. After few years of marriage, the husband of the informant along with his family members, had started torturing her mentally and physically for demand of four wheeler as dowry and due to non-fulfillment of the same, they had ousted her from her matrimonial house along with her child.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the allegation primarily arises out of dispute between husband and wife and is not against the society. Petitioner no. 1 is mother-in-law of Opposite party no.2 and petitioner no. 2 is brother-in-law (Bhaisur) of the opposite party no. 2, who are married and reside at different village. 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.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for 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. He, however, submitted that a chance be given to the parties to settle their dispute amicably.

6. Heard the parties.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. From perusal of the FIR, it is evident that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner no. 2, who is brother-in-law and allegation against him is general and omnibus.

10. It has been held by the Apex Court that the matrimonial dispute is not an offense against the society rather a matrimonial dispute is a private conflict between spouses and does not inherently constitute an offence against society. The Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana , reported in, (2003) 4 SCC 675 , in paragraph nos. 12 and 13 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is as under:-

“ 12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [(2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a matrimonial dispute by the courts.