Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 212
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO…………………………OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) NO.3075/2024)
DR. SUSHIL KUMAR
PURBEY & ANR. …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR
AND ORS. …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises from the judgment and
order dated 8th August 2023 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 70355
of 2022. By the impugned order, the High Court quashed
the criminal proceedings against one of the accused,
namely, the sister-in-law of the complainant (respondent
no. 3), while declining to extend the same relief to the
present accused-appellants, who are the father-in-law and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2026.03.09
18:18:15 IST
Reason:
mother-in-law of the complainant (respondent no. 2).
CRL.A. …/2026@SLP(CRL.) NO.3075/2024 Page 1 of 9
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, shorn of
unnecessary details, are as follows:
3.1. The complainant married Dr. Rishi Raj, the son
of the present appellants, on 8th July 2019.
3.2. On 31st March 2021, the husband instituted a
divorce petition against the complainant under
1
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , before
the Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga, Bihar.
3.3. On 18th March 2022, the complainant
submitted a written report, on the basis of which First
2
Information Report No. 81/2022 was registered
under Sections 341, 323, 498A and 34 of the Indian
3
Penal Code, 1860 , and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
4
Prohibition Act, 1961 , at Police Station Lalit Narayan
University, District Darbhanga, Bihar, against the
husband, the two appellants herein, and the sister-in-
law.
3.4. The complainant alleged that, soon after the
marriage, she was subjected to persistent torture and
cruelty, particularly on account of demands for a BMW
car and other valuable articles, which she was unable
1
In short “HMA”
2
In short “FIR”
3
Hereinafter, referred to as “IPC”.
4
Hereinafter, referred to as “Dowry Act”.
CRL.A. …/2026@SLP(CRL.) NO.3075/2024 Page 2 of 9
to fulfil. It was further alleged that the husband
physically assaulted her, and that on 18th March
2022, the accused persons, acting in concert, tied a
sheet around her neck and strangulated her with the
intent to cause her death.
3.5. The complainant additionally filed Complaint
Case No. 790/2022 before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Hajipur, Vaishali, Bihar, wherein she
made further allegations against the same accused
persons.
3.6. The appellants filed an application for
anticipatory bail, which was allowed by the Trial Court
vide order dated 12th April 2022.
3.7. Pursuant to the investigation arising out of FIR
No. 81/2022, the police report was submitted on 5th
June 2022.
3.8. The Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 7th
September 2022, took cognizance of offences under
Sections 341, 323, 498A and 34 of the IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act against the
husband, the appellants herein, and the sister-in-law,
in L.M.N.U. P.S. Case No. 81 of 2022.
CRL.A. …/2026@SLP(CRL.) NO.3075/2024 Page 3 of 9
3.9. On 23rd November 2022, the appellants, along
with the sister-in-law (respondent no.3), filed a
petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
5
Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the order dated
7th September 2022, whereby the Judicial Magistrate
had taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences.
3.10. The High Court, by the impugned order, partly
allowed the petition for quashing, but only insofar as
the sister-in-law of the complainant was concerned.
The High Court held that the allegations against her
were general and omnibus in nature, and therefore
insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings. However,
the petition was dismissed with respect to the present
appellants being the father-in-law and mother-in-law
of the complainant with the High Court taking a view
that prima facie case had been made out against them.
3.11. Aggrieved by the said order, the present
appellants have approached this Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants, the learned counsel for the respondent-State,
and the learned senior counsel for the complainant-
5
Hereinafter, referred to as “CrPC”.
CRL.A. …/2026@SLP(CRL.) NO.3075/2024 Page 4 of 9
Respondent No. 2 at length, and have also perused the
material placed on record.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
High Court erred in confining the grant of quashing relief
solely to sister-in-law, on the ground that the allegations
against her were general in nature, while declining the same
relief to the appellants. It is contended that the allegations
against the present appellants are equally general and
omnibus and that no specific role has been attributed to
them in the complaint. It is accordingly submitted that the
criminal proceedings against the appellants also merit
quashing. It is further submitted that the FIR in question
is, in substance, a counter-blast to the divorce petition filed
by the husband. In this regard, it is pointed out that
whereas the FIR makes no mention of any dowry in the form
of a motor vehicle, the complainant within a period of twelve
days, supplemented and improved upon her initial version
in the complaint filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
adding fresh allegations to the effect that her family had
given a Maruti car as dowry. It is submitted that such
material improvements to the initial account cast serious
doubt on the credibility of the complaint.
6. Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the
complainant submits that the allegations against the
CRL.A. …/2026@SLP(CRL.) NO.3075/2024 Page 5 of 9
present appellants are specific and cannot be characterised
as general or omnibus. It is further submitted that the trial
is at an advanced stage and that the recording of
prosecution evidence is already underway. Attention is also
drawn to the fact that the High Court has directed the Trial
Court to conclude the proceedings within a period of one
year. In view of these circumstances, it is urged that the
appellants ought to be required to face trial and that this
Court should not interfere with the criminal proceedings at
this stage.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
parties and upon a careful perusal of the material on
record, we are of the view that the High Court fell into error
in restricting the quashing of criminal proceedings only to
the sister-in-law (respondent no.3). A comparative reading
of the FIR reveals that the allegations levelled against the
sister-in-law and those against the present appellants are,
in all material particulars, identical. The FIR does not
assign any specific or overt act to either appellant; there are
no particular dates, places, or individual acts attributed to
them. The lone allegation that stands separately against the
present appellants is that they would quarrel. This,
however, does not constitute a criminal offence and cannot,
by itself, sustain cognizance of the offences under Sections
CRL.A. …/2026@SLP(CRL.) NO.3075/2024 Page 6 of 9
341, 323, 498A & 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the
Dowry Act for which the appellants have been summoned.
The standard applied by the High Court in quashing
proceedings against the sister-in-law, on the ground that
the allegations against her were general and omnibus,
applies with equal force to the present appellants, and there
is no principled basis for distinguishing between them.
8. It is further pertinent to note that the marriage was
solemnised in July 2019, and the husband filed the divorce
petition as early as March 2021. The criminal complaint
against the appellants was, however, lodged only in March
2022, nearly a year after the filing of the divorce petition.
Though this delay, standing alone, would not constitute a
sufficient ground for quashing the criminal proceedings
against the appellants. However, viewed in conjunction with
the absence of any specific allegations attributable to them,
the delay lends credence to the submission that the
criminal complaint against the in-laws may have been
instituted by way of a counter-blast to the divorce
proceedings initiated by the husband. When these two
considerations are read together, we are satisfied that the
continuation of the criminal proceedings against the
present appellants cannot be sustained.
CRL.A. …/2026@SLP(CRL.) NO.3075/2024 Page 7 of 9
9. Before moving forward, we consider it necessary to
clarify that the observations made hereinabove are confined
to the question of the maintainability of the criminal
proceedings against the present appellants, and must not
be construed as an expression of any opinion on the merits
of the case as a whole. The criminal proceedings against the
husband shall continue in accordance with law. We note,
in this context, that the husband did not seek quashing of
the proceedings against him before the High Court under
Section 482 of the CrPC; it was only the present appellants
and the sister-in-law who did so. The husband is also not
before this Court in the present appeal. We therefore find
no occasion to comment upon the allegations levelled
against him, and the proceedings against him shall be
governed by law.
10. In view of the foregoing, 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
CRL.A. …/2026@SLP(CRL.) NO.3075/2024 Page 8 of 9
appellants. The impugned order, to the extent that it
declined to extend such relief to the appellants, cannot be
sustained.
11. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated
8th August 2023 passed by the High Court is set aside to
the extent that it refused to quash the criminal proceedings
against the present appellants. Consequently, all
proceedings arising out of L.N.M.U. P.S. Case No. 81 of
2022, registered under Sections 341, 323, 498A and 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, are hereby quashed
insofar as the present appellants are concerned.
12. In the result, the present criminal appeal is allowed in
the above terms.
13. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
………………………………J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
………………………………J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 09, 2026
CRL.A. …/2026@SLP(CRL.) NO.3075/2024 Page 9 of 9
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO…………………………OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) NO.3075/2024)
DR. SUSHIL KUMAR
PURBEY & ANR. …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR
AND ORS. …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises from the judgment and
order dated 8th August 2023 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 70355
of 2022. By the impugned order, the High Court quashed
the criminal proceedings against one of the accused,
namely, the sister-in-law of the complainant (respondent
no. 3), while declining to extend the same relief to the
present accused-appellants, who are the father-in-law and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2026.03.09
18:18:15 IST
Reason:
mother-in-law of the complainant (respondent no. 2).
CRL.A. …/2026@SLP(CRL.) NO.3075/2024 Page 1 of 9
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, shorn of
unnecessary details, are as follows:
3.1. The complainant married Dr. Rishi Raj, the son
of the present appellants, on 8th July 2019.
3.2. On 31st March 2021, the husband instituted a
divorce petition against the complainant under
1
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , before
the Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga, Bihar.
3.3. On 18th March 2022, the complainant
submitted a written report, on the basis of which First
2
Information Report No. 81/2022 was registered
under Sections 341, 323, 498A and 34 of the Indian
3
Penal Code, 1860 , and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
4
Prohibition Act, 1961 , at Police Station Lalit Narayan
University, District Darbhanga, Bihar, against the
husband, the two appellants herein, and the sister-in-
law.
3.4. The complainant alleged that, soon after the
marriage, she was subjected to persistent torture and
cruelty, particularly on account of demands for a BMW
car and other valuable articles, which she was unable
1
In short “HMA”
2
In short “FIR”
3
Hereinafter, referred to as “IPC”.
4
Hereinafter, referred to as “Dowry Act”.
CRL.A. …/2026@SLP(CRL.) NO.3075/2024 Page 2 of 9
to fulfil. It was further alleged that the husband
physically assaulted her, and that on 18th March
2022, the accused persons, acting in concert, tied a
sheet around her neck and strangulated her with the
intent to cause her death.
3.5. The complainant additionally filed Complaint
Case No. 790/2022 before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Hajipur, Vaishali, Bihar, wherein she
made further allegations against the same accused
persons.
3.6. The appellants filed an application for
anticipatory bail, which was allowed by the Trial Court
vide order dated 12th April 2022.
3.7. Pursuant to the investigation arising out of FIR
No. 81/2022, the police report was submitted on 5th
June 2022.
3.8. The Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 7th
September 2022, took cognizance of offences under
Sections 341, 323, 498A and 34 of the IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act against the
husband, the appellants herein, and the sister-in-law,
in L.M.N.U. P.S. Case No. 81 of 2022.
CRL.A. …/2026@SLP(CRL.) NO.3075/2024 Page 3 of 9
3.9. On 23rd November 2022, the appellants, along
with the sister-in-law (respondent no.3), filed a
petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
5
Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the order dated
7th September 2022, whereby the Judicial Magistrate
had taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences.
3.10. The High Court, by the impugned order, partly
allowed the petition for quashing, but only insofar as
the sister-in-law of the complainant was concerned.
The High Court held that the allegations against her
were general and omnibus in nature, and therefore
insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings. However,
the petition was dismissed with respect to the present
appellants being the father-in-law and mother-in-law
of the complainant with the High Court taking a view
that prima facie case had been made out against them.
3.11. Aggrieved by the said order, the present
appellants have approached this Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants, the learned counsel for the respondent-State,
and the learned senior counsel for the complainant-
5
Hereinafter, referred to as “CrPC”.
CRL.A. …/2026@SLP(CRL.) NO.3075/2024 Page 4 of 9
Respondent No. 2 at length, and have also perused the
material placed on record.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
High Court erred in confining the grant of quashing relief
solely to sister-in-law, on the ground that the allegations
against her were general in nature, while declining the same
relief to the appellants. It is contended that the allegations
against the present appellants are equally general and
omnibus and that no specific role has been attributed to
them in the complaint. It is accordingly submitted that the
criminal proceedings against the appellants also merit
quashing. It is further submitted that the FIR in question
is, in substance, a counter-blast to the divorce petition filed
by the husband. In this regard, it is pointed out that
whereas the FIR makes no mention of any dowry in the form
of a motor vehicle, the complainant within a period of twelve
days, supplemented and improved upon her initial version
in the complaint filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
adding fresh allegations to the effect that her family had
given a Maruti car as dowry. It is submitted that such
material improvements to the initial account cast serious
doubt on the credibility of the complaint.
6. Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the
complainant submits that the allegations against the
CRL.A. …/2026@SLP(CRL.) NO.3075/2024 Page 5 of 9
present appellants are specific and cannot be characterised
as general or omnibus. It is further submitted that the trial
is at an advanced stage and that the recording of
prosecution evidence is already underway. Attention is also
drawn to the fact that the High Court has directed the Trial
Court to conclude the proceedings within a period of one
year. In view of these circumstances, it is urged that the
appellants ought to be required to face trial and that this
Court should not interfere with the criminal proceedings at
this stage.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
parties and upon a careful perusal of the material on
record, we are of the view that the High Court fell into error
in restricting the quashing of criminal proceedings only to
the sister-in-law (respondent no.3). A comparative reading
of the FIR reveals that the allegations levelled against the
sister-in-law and those against the present appellants are,
in all material particulars, identical. The FIR does not
assign any specific or overt act to either appellant; there are
no particular dates, places, or individual acts attributed to
them. The lone allegation that stands separately against the
present appellants is that they would quarrel. This,
however, does not constitute a criminal offence and cannot,
by itself, sustain cognizance of the offences under Sections
CRL.A. …/2026@SLP(CRL.) NO.3075/2024 Page 6 of 9
341, 323, 498A & 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the
Dowry Act for which the appellants have been summoned.
The standard applied by the High Court in quashing
proceedings against the sister-in-law, on the ground that
the allegations against her were general and omnibus,
applies with equal force to the present appellants, and there
is no principled basis for distinguishing between them.
8. It is further pertinent to note that the marriage was
solemnised in July 2019, and the husband filed the divorce
petition as early as March 2021. The criminal complaint
against the appellants was, however, lodged only in March
2022, nearly a year after the filing of the divorce petition.
Though this delay, standing alone, would not constitute a
sufficient ground for quashing the criminal proceedings
against the appellants. However, viewed in conjunction with
the absence of any specific allegations attributable to them,
the delay lends credence to the submission that the
criminal complaint against the in-laws may have been
instituted by way of a counter-blast to the divorce
proceedings initiated by the husband. When these two
considerations are read together, we are satisfied that the
continuation of the criminal proceedings against the
present appellants cannot be sustained.
CRL.A. …/2026@SLP(CRL.) NO.3075/2024 Page 7 of 9
9. Before moving forward, we consider it necessary to
clarify that the observations made hereinabove are confined
to the question of the maintainability of the criminal
proceedings against the present appellants, and must not
be construed as an expression of any opinion on the merits
of the case as a whole. The criminal proceedings against the
husband shall continue in accordance with law. We note,
in this context, that the husband did not seek quashing of
the proceedings against him before the High Court under
Section 482 of the CrPC; it was only the present appellants
and the sister-in-law who did so. The husband is also not
before this Court in the present appeal. We therefore find
no occasion to comment upon the allegations levelled
against him, and the proceedings against him shall be
governed by law.
10. In view of the foregoing, 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
CRL.A. …/2026@SLP(CRL.) NO.3075/2024 Page 8 of 9
appellants. The impugned order, to the extent that it
declined to extend such relief to the appellants, cannot be
sustained.
11. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated
8th August 2023 passed by the High Court is set aside to
the extent that it refused to quash the criminal proceedings
against the present appellants. Consequently, all
proceedings arising out of L.N.M.U. P.S. Case No. 81 of
2022, registered under Sections 341, 323, 498A and 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, are hereby quashed
insofar as the present appellants are concerned.
12. In the result, the present criminal appeal is allowed in
the above terms.
13. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
………………………………J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
………………………………J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 09, 2026
CRL.A. …/2026@SLP(CRL.) NO.3075/2024 Page 9 of 9