PATNA, India, Nov. 21 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Oct. 30:

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners; learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 22.05.2023 passed in Patori P.S. Case No.92 of 2017 in G.R. No.562 of 2017, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 498A and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The allegation is of subjecting the opposite party no.2 to various sorts of torture due to non-fulfillment of the demand of the dowry.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that petitioner no. 1 is the husband of opposite party no. 2 and petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 are father-inlaw, mother-in-law and brother-in-law (brother of the husband of the opposite party no.2) of opposite party no. 2, respectively. He further submitted that the learned District Court, without considering the material available on record and applying its judicial mind has taken cognizance against the petitioners in most mechanical manner, which 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, in such circumstances, the Court must allow the parties to ponder, so that, they can reconcile their dispute outside the court. He further submitted that matter be referred for mediation.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned APP are also of the same view and jointly submitted that opportunity be given to the parties to reconcile their dispute amicably.

6. The parties have agreed to appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M. on 08.12.2025.

7. Heard the parties.

8. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, the fact that petitioner no. 1 is the husband of opposite party no. 2 and petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 are father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law (brother of the husband of the opposite party no.2) of opposite party no. 2, respectively. The parties have mutually agreed to appear on 08.12.2025 before the learned District Court and 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, however, a false case can have a disastrous consequence in absence of any criminal content, the personal dispute cannot call for a criminal offence, in such situation, continuation of the proceeding would amount to abuse of process of law leading to vexatious proceeding against the petitioners nos.2, 3 and 4 are set aside and quashed.

9. At the same time, 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.

10. The Apex Court has demarcated the manner in which the complaints are entertained by the learned District Court. 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.

11. 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 has held as under:-

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NiMzMDUwIzIwMjUjMSNO-c--am1--sFAIOxB2o=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.