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 482 of CrPC for quashing the order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the learned Judaical Magistrate, 1st Class, Sitamarhi in G.R. No.2381/2022 arising out of Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 262/2022, by which learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence against the petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 342, 504, 498(A), 494/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

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 without considering this aspect, the order taking cognizance against the petitioner cannot sustain in the eye of law. He further submitted that petitioner no. 1 is father-in-law, petitioner no.2 is mother-in-law, petitioner no.3 is brother-in-law and petitioner no.4 is married sister-inlaw of opposite party no.2. 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. Both the parties submitted that matter be referred for mediation

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 complaint, it is evident that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners no. 1, 3 and 4, who are father-in-law, brother-in-law and married sister-inlaw of the opposite party no. 2. So far as petitioner no.2, who is mother-in-law of the opposite party no.2 is concerned, her complicity in the alleged offence cannot be denied. 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 Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act is made out against petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4. Accordingly, the entire proceedings and order taking cognizance dated 12.09.2024 passed by the learned Judaical Magistrate, 1st Class, Sitamarhi in G.R. No.2381/2022 arising out of Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 262/2022 is hereby set aside and quashed to the extent it relates to petitioners no. 1, 3 and 4.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NiM4Nzg5NyMyMDI0IzEjTg==-gKgNjQdVTSM=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.