PATNA, India, Nov. 24 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Nov. 3:

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

2. The present application has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing the order dated 09.12.2024 passed by the learned ACJM-IX, Saran in connection with Amnaur P.S. Case No.184 of 2019, by which the learned District Court has rejected the petition filed by the petitioners under Sections 239 of Cr.P.C.

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

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 as such the impugned order cannot sustain in the eye of law. He further submitted that petitioners no. 1 and 2 are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the opposite party no. 2, whereas petitioners no. 3, 4 and 5 are their Bhaisur, Gotni and Devar respectively. 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. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2 submitted that O.P. No.2 is residing with her child, who is aged about 7 years old and her husband is not taking care of her child, nor he is supporting financially or showing his love and affection. He further submitted that son of petitioner no.1 has already filed Matrimonial Case No.183 of 2021 for divorce with O.P. No.2 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur.

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 has held that the family members of husband should not be roped unnecessarily and face vexatious criminal trial.

9. From perusal of the FIR, it is evident that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners no. 2, 3, 4 and 5 rather the same is general and omnibus. However, the complicity of petitioner no.1, who is mother-in-law of the O.P. No.2 cannot be denied in the said offence. In light of the recent judgment of Apex Court in the case of Navneesh Aggarwal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 963, I find that no case under Sections 498A and aforesaid allied Sections of IPC is made out against petitioners no. 2, 3, 4 and 5. Accordingly, the order dated 09.12.2024 passed by learned ACJM IX, Saran at Chapra, by which he has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioners, is hereby set aside and quashed to the extent it relates to petitioners no. 2, 3, 4 and 5.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NiMxNTIzMCMyMDI1IzEjTg==-b7IRqibCIrs=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.