Cause Title: DR. SUSHIL KUMAR PURBEY & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against the parents-in-law of a woman in a dowry harassment case, observing that the allegations against them were vague and identical.
The Court observed that the lone allegation against the appellants was that they would quarrel with the woman. The Court stated that a quarrel, per se, will not constitute the offence of domestic cruelty or dowry harassment in terms of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The complainant had alleged in her First Information Report that her husband, parents-in-law, and sister-in-law subjected her to cruelty and harassment in connection with alleged dowry demands, including a BMW car and other valuable articles. Among the allegations made in the complaint was a claim that the parents-in-law “would quarrel” with her.
When the matter reached the Patna High Court, the court quashed proceedings against the sister-in-law on the ground that the allegations against her were general and omnibus in nature. However, it declined to grant similar relief to the parents-in-law, observing that a prima facie case had been made out against them, prompting them to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Nath observed that the High Court erred in restricting the quashing of criminal proceedings only to the sister-in-law, while a case was also made out by the Appellants for quashing a case.
the court observed. “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.”, the court held.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
