Jharkhand HC Quashes Case Against Mother- And Sister-In-Law Over Alleged Refusal To Let Wife Enter Marital Home, Finding No Charged Offence Made Out

The petitioners, the informant’s mother-in-law and sister-in-law, sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), of the criminal proceeding arising from Lohardaga Mahila P.S. Case No. 23 of 2024, including the orders taking cognizance and framing charges under Sections 85, 115(2), 126(2), 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The allegations against the petitioners were that they did not allow the informant to enter her matrimonial home and insulted her. The alleged assault and dowry-related conduct were attributed to her husband, while the alleged threat was attributed to another woman.

The High Court allowed an interlocutory application to add a challenge to the order framing charges before deciding the petition on its merits.

Section 528 of the BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The Court applied the elements of the charged offences: Section 115(2) requires voluntarily causing hurt; Section 351(2) requires a threat of injury with the requisite intent; Section 85 requires cruelty of the kind specified in that provision by a husband or his relative; Section 126(2) requires voluntary obstruction preventing a person from proceeding in a direction in which that person has a right to proceed; and Section 352 requires intentional insult intended or known to be likely to provoke a breach of the peace or another offence.

Relying on *R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab*, as cited in *Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand*, the Court noted that proceedings may be quashed where allegations, accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the alleged offence.

It also relied on *Neelu Chopra v. Bharti* for the principle that a complaint should set out the particulars and role of each accused, and that vague and general allegations may not justify prosecution.

*Sushil Kumar v. Union of India* was cited in connection with the ingredients of cruelty under Section 85.

The Court assessed the allegations against each statutory ingredient, taking them as true. The allegation of assault was directed only at the husband, and no hurt was attributed to either petitioner; the alleged threat was attributed to another person.

The allegations that the petitioners prevented the informant from entering the matrimonial home and insulted her did not, in the Court’s view, establish the requisite cruelty under Section 85, voluntary obstruction under Section 126(2), or an insult intended or likely to provoke a breach of the peace under Section 352.

Because the allegations did not disclose the essential ingredients of any charged offence against the petitioners, the Court held that allowing the prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of process.

It allowed the petition and quashed, qua the petitioners, the criminal proceeding, the cognizance order dated 21 August 2025, and the charge-framing order dated 10 August 2026.