Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta quashed criminal proceedings against a woman's parents-in-law in a dowry harassment matter, finding the allegations against them vague, general, and indistinguishable from those already set aside against another co-accused. The Court noted that the sole distinct allegation — that the in-laws would quarrel with the complainant — does not, by itself, amount to an offence under the relevant provisions governing domestic cruelty or dowry harassment and therefore cannot sustain cognizance of the charges for which they were summoned.

The complainant married the son of the accused appellants in July 2019. Shortly after the marriage, she alleged persistent torture and cruelty on account of demands for a BMW car and other valuable articles. She further alleged that the accused persons, acting together, tied a sheet around her neck with intent to cause her death. A First Information Report was subsequently registered against the husband, his parents, and his sister, under provisions relating to wrongful restraint, hurt, dowry harassment, and common intention, along with sections of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Also Read: Section 202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory For Complaints Filed By Public Servant In Official Duty: Supreme Court

The appellants sought anticipatory bail, which was granted. Following investigation, a police report was filed and cognizance was taken by the Judicial Magistrate. The appellants thereafter filed a petition before the High Court seeking quashing of the cognizance order.

The appellants contended that the allegations against them were general and omnibus, with no specific acts, dates, or places attributed to them individually. They further argued that the criminal complaint was filed nearly a year after the husband had instituted divorce proceedings, and that the complainant had subsequently introduced new allegations not present in the original FIR, casting doubt on its credibility. The complainant's counsel countered that the allegations were specific and that the trial was already at an advanced stage.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court erred in restricting the quashing of criminal proceedings only to the sister-in-law, while an equal case had been made out by the appellants for the same relief.

On the parity of allegations, the Court stated that "a comparative reading of the FIR reveals that the allegations levelled against the sister-in-law and those against the present appellants are, in all material particulars, identical. The FIR does not assign any specific or overt act to either appellant; there are no particular dates, places, or individual acts attributed to them. The lone allegation that stands separately against the present appellants is that they would quarrel. This, however, does not constitute a criminal offence and cannot, by itself, sustain cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 498A & 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Act for which the appellants have been summoned."

Regarding the delay in filing the complaint, the Court observed that though delay alone would not constitute a sufficient ground for quashing, viewed in conjunction with the absence of specific allegations, it lent credence to the submission that the complaint may have been instituted as a counter-blast to the divorce proceedings initiated by the husband.

On the inconsistency in the High Court's approach, the Court held that "we are of the considered opinion that the High Court erred in applying different standards to persons who stand on an identical footing insofar as the nature of the allegations against them is concerned. Since the allegations against the present appellants and the sister-in-law are, in substance, the same, the reasoning that led the High Court to quash the proceedings against the sister-in-law ought equally to have led to the quashing of proceedings against the present appellants. The impugned order, to the extent that it declined to extend such relief to the appellants, cannot be sustained."

Also Read: Aggrieved Party Cannot Pursue Two Parallel Remedies Against The Same Judgment Simultaneously, Amounts To Abuse Of Judicial Process: Rajasthan High Court

The Court directed: "The impugned judgment and order dated 8th August 2023 passed by the High Court is set aside to the extent that it refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the present appellants. All proceedings arising out of L.N.M.U. P.S. Case No. 81 of 2022, registered under Sections 341, 323, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, are hereby quashed insofar as the present appellants are concerned. The present criminal appeal is allowed in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Lal Babu Singh, Adv. Mr. Rana Prashant, Adv. Mr. Akash Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mahender Rathour, Adv.

For Respondent(s): Mr. Anshul Narayan, Addl. Standing Counsel, Adv. Mrs. Vineeta Singh, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Harsh, Adv. Mr. Prem Prakash, AOR Mr. Bharat Sangal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hemant Kumar Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Nagarkatti Kartik Uday, AOR

Case Title: Dr. Sushil Kumar Purbey & Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 212

Case Number: SLP(Crl.) No. 3075/2024

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta