In Prabha Devi & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and K.K Singh passed a 5-page long order dated September 8, 2026, wherein, it granted leave and concluded:"10. We are, therefore, satisfied that the allegations and the material collected during the investigation do not disclose the necessary ingredients of Sections 341, 323, 498A and 504, read with Section 34 IPC, against the appellant. Continuation of the prosecution against her would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 11. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned final order dated 10.11.2025 is set aside to the extent that it declines quashing the criminal proceedings as against the appellant herein. Therefore, all subsequent criminal proceedings/processes arising out of FIR no. 20 of 2024 dated 27.03.2024 registered at Mahila Police Station, Saran are quashed only insofar as they concern the appellant, Prabha Devi. This order shall not affect the proceedings against the husband, which shall be considered on their own merits. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." The Respondents no. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are:Puja Kumari Gupta, Satya Dev Prasad, Shailesh Prasad, Shailesh Kumar and Anita Devi respectively.
The appellant before the Supreme Court was the mother-in-law of respondent no. 2, the complainant. The appellant questioned the final order dated November 10, 2025 passed by Justice Purnendu Singh of the Patna High Court, to the extent that the High Court declined to quash the criminal proceedings against her.
The proceedings arise from FIR No. 20 of 2024, dated March 27, 2024, registered at Mahila Police Station, Saran, initially for offences under Sections 354, 379, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After investigation, Charge-sheet No. 36 of 2024, dated July 22, 2024, was filed under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 504 and 34 IPC. Cognizance was taken on September 2, 2024 in T.R. No. 3763 of 2024.
The marriage between respondent No.2 and the appellant’s son was solemnised on November 22, 2015, whereafter the spouses ordinarily resided at Pune. It is alleged that during the COVID-19 period in 2020, they shifted to the family residence at Bada Telpa Chowk, Saran district, where respondent No.2 was subjected to harassment by the accused persons. The material incident concerning the appellant is alleged to have occurred on February 15, 2023, when respondent no.2 returned with her father to the matrimonial residence. It is alleged that the appellant and the sister-in-law abused her and that the appellant admitted having taken jewellery found missing from an almirah. The acts of catching respondent no. 2 by her hands and hair, assaulting her and tearing her clothes are specifically attributed to the father-in-law and brother-in-law, followed by the general assertion that all the accused beat her. The statements of the complainant's parents principally concern the matrimonial discord between the spouses and do not attribute to the appellant any specific demand for property or distinct act causing hurt.
Supreme Court has recorded in its order: "Six persons from the neighbourhood stated that respondent no. 2 ordinarily lived in Pune and that they had neither seen nor heard of any harassment by the in-laws. The record discloses no recovery of jewellery and no injury report. Nevertheless, a common charge sheet was filed against the husband and four in-laws. 5. In the quashing petition filed by the appellant and the other in-laws, the High Court held that the allegations against the father-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law were general and omnibus, and it quashed the proceedings against them. However, the High Court neither quashed the proceedings against the appellant nor recorded how the ingredients of the charged offences were made out against her. Instead, the High Court directed the appellant and her son to participate in mediation, granted interim protection for four months and made its continuance depend upon which party was responsible for failure of mediation.
Supreme Court's order reads: "7. The Court must examine whether the allegations, taken at their face value, along with the material collected during the investigation, disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged against the particular accused. The principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599 permit interference where the allegations do not constitute an offence and caution against compelling relatives of the husband to face trial on general and omnibus allegations. Tested on the aforesaid standard, the ingredients of Section 498A IPC are not disclosed against the appellant. No unlawful demand is attributed to her. The collective allegations of taunting, opposition to the marriage and harassment do not state the particular conduct of the appellant or disclose wilful conduct of the degree contemplated by the provision. The later assertion that she failed to restrain her son cannot constitute cruelty or common intention without a corresponding factual foundation in the FIR or the material collected during investigation. 8. To attract Section 341 IPC, no act of wrongful restraint is attributed to the appellant. As regards Section 323 IPC, the detailed acts of physical assault are attributed to the father-in-law and brother-in-law, against whom the criminal proceedings have been quashed by the High Court in the impunged order."
The Supreme Court observed: "The residual allegation against all the accused is undifferentiated, does not identify any particular act of the appellant and is not particularised by the material collected during investigation. However, the High Court, while quashing the proceedings against the other in-laws, did not distinguish the case of the appellant or record any reason for denying the relief of quashing qua the appellant. For Section 504 IPC, neither the words used nor the facts showing an intentional insult likely to provoke a breach of peace are stated. Section 34 IPC cannot supply the essential facts of the principal offences. 9. The allegation concerning the jewellery is undoubtedly more specific. However, after investigation, no charge under Section 379 IPC or any offence concerning entrustment or dishonest retention of the jewellery was filed, and no recovery was effected. In the absence of the necessary connecting facts, that allegation cannot, by itself, be transposed into the distinct offences appearing in the
charge-sheet."
Earlier, in Prabha Devi & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Justice Singh had delivered a 9-page long judgement dated November 10, 2025, wherein, it recorded that no one appeared on behalf of Puja Kumari, the O.P. No.2. The judgement concluded:"16. In the present case, so far as, the petitioner no.1 (mother-in-law of the O.P. No.2) is concerned, she along with her son, has agreed to settle the dispute outside the Court and she has willingly desired to appear along with her son before the learned District Court on 17.12.2025 at 10:30 AM."
Justice Singh added: "17. Learned District Court is directed to take necessary steps to issue notices to the respective parties and upon their appearance, refer the matter before the learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center. 18. Learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center concerned shall make his/her best efforts to settle the dispute between the parties amicably and thereafter submit his/her report before the concerned learned District Court, well within a period of four months, till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner no.1 in connection with the aforesaid case. 19. In case, the parties resolve their dispute amicably, then the proceeding is required to be dropped in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court as referred hereinabove. 20. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner no.1 to appear on 17.12.2025 along with her son before the learned District Court or any date fixed by the learned
Mediator, the interim protection granted to the petitioner shall automatically lose its force. 21. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the petitioner no.1 and reconciliation fails, then in that case, the learned District Court shall proceed with the trial. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the opposite party no.2 to reconcile, then in that case, the interim protection granted to the petitioner no.1 shall continue and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. 22. Accordingly, the present quashing application stands disposed of."
Justice Singh had observed: "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. 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. 10. From perusal of the complaint, it is evident that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners no. 2 to 4, who are father-in-law, brother-in-law and Gotani (wife of brother-in-law) and allegation against them is general and omnibus. 11. 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."
Justice Singh drew on paragraph nos. 12 and 13 of the decision of the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana, reported in, (2003) 4 SCC 675. It reads: “ 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. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts."
Justice Singh referred Supreme Court's decision in Navneesh Aggarwal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
reported in 2025 INSC 963, wherein, it has held that the family members of husband should not be roped unnecessarily and face vexatious criminal trial.
Justice Singh had observed:"13. I find that no case under Section 498A and other allied sections of IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act is made out against petitioner nos.2 to 4. Accordingly, the entire proceedings and order taking cognizance dated 02.09.2024 (Arising out of Saran Mahila P.S. Case No.20 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 498(A), 354, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and T.R. No.3763 of 2024) passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate is hereby set aside and quashed to the extent it relates to petitioners no. 2 to 4."
Justice Singh relied on Supreme Court's decision in Mange Ram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.10817 of 2024), in paragraph nos. 25 and 31 dealing with the cases related to dowry has held that opportunity be given to the parties first to reconcile. It reads: “25. This Court, in Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735, has made it clear that family members of the husband ought not to be unnecessarily roped into criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord. The Court observed that it has become a recurring tendency to implicate every member of the husband’s family, irrespective of their role or actual involvement, merely because a dispute has arisen between the spouses. It was further held that where the allegations are bereft of specific particulars, and particularly where the relatives sought to be prosecuted are residing separately or have had no connection with the matrimonial home, allowing the prosecution to proceed would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Court noted that criminal law is not to be deployed as an instrument of harassment, and that judicial scrutiny must be exercised to guard against such misuse....31. We also refer to Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 wherein this Court observed that where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled, although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. In this regard, a specific reference was made to offences arising out of matrimony,
particularly relating to dowry, etc. or a family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim but the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable. The High Court may, within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal
proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.”
Justice Singh had also referred to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Naushey Ali & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78, wherein, considering the entirety of matters, particularly dealing with the misuse of Section 498 of IPC, referring to its earlier judgment, finally concluded that offences arising out of matrimonial dispute particularly relating to dowry etc. or a family dispute where wrong is committed to the victim by the offenders and his family, can be settled amicably.
Supreme Court has set aside Justice Singh's order to the extent it declines quashing the criminal proceedings as against Prabha Devi. Therefore, all subsequent criminal proceedings/processes arising out of FIR no. 20 of 2024 dated March 27, 2024 registered at Mahila Police Station, Saran have been quashed only insofar as they concern Prabha Devi, the appellant.
No comments:
Post a Comment