The Patna High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a husband’s relatives, holding that cruelty allegations fail when there is no shared residence or real interaction. The ruling reinforces judicial caution against vague and omnibus matrimonial complaints that unnecessarily drag entire families into criminal trials.
Patna: The Patna High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the husband’s relatives in a matrimonial dispute as the allegations were vague, omnibus, and unsupported by evidence, with no shared household or medical proof of assault.
The case arose from a criminal complaint filed in Begusarai, Bihar, where a woman accused her husband and his family members of cruelty, assault, and harassment under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Based on the complaint, a Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance and summoned the husband’s relatives for trial. Aggrieved by this, the in-laws approached the Patna High Court seeking quashing of the criminal case.
The complainant alleged that she married the co-accused according to Hindu rituals at a temple in Begusarai. She claimed that despite knowing she was divorced, from a different caste, and had a minor child from her previous marriage, the man agreed to marry her. After the marriage, she alleged that she was kept in a rented house and later faced cruelty, caste abuse, physical assault, and even an attempt to press her neck.
The accused family members approached the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal case. They argued that the complaint was based on vague and general allegations, without any clear role or specific act attributed to each family member. They also pointed out that the complainant had not produced any proof of her earlier marriage being legally dissolved.
After examining the complaint and statements, the High Court observed that the allegations against the relatives were largely vague and omnibus. The Court clearly recorded that the complaint did not disclose any specific overt act and stated that the allegations were “largely vague, omnibus, and generalized in nature” and that:
“Except for a broad narrative alleging harassment, the complaint does not attribute any specific role, overt act, or distinct instance of cruelty to any of the petitioners.”
The HC said-
The Court noted that in matrimonial disputes, there is a known tendency to involve the entire family without solid material, which courts must carefully scrutinize.
A key fact noted by the Court was that the complainant herself admitted that she had been living separately from the petitioners for nearly three years and never shared a household with them.
The Court observed that cruelty normally presumes proximity and interaction and explained that:
“Cruelty, in the context of matrimonial offences, presupposes a degree of proximity, interaction, or cohabitation that enables harassment or ill-treatment.”
The only specific allegation was that one accused allegedly tried to press the complainant’s neck. However, this claim had no medical evidence, no injury report, and no contemporaneous record. The allegation was also not mentioned in the original complaint and surfaced later during enquiry, making it unreliable for sustaining criminal prosecution.
The Court further examined the legal validity of the marriage itself. It was an admitted position that the complainant was previously married and had a minor child from that marriage. No divorce decree was placed on record. Therefore, the alleged second marriage was considered void ab initio in the eyes of law. Without a legally valid marriage, matrimonial offences cannot legally stand.
The High Court clarified that Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita requires two essential elements — a legally valid marital relationship and cruelty arising from that relationship. In this case, neither requirement was satisfied.
Relying on multiple Supreme Court judgments, the Court reiterated that criminal law should not be used as a pressure tactic or harassment tool in family disputes, especially when allegations are general and unsupported by evidence.
The Court also applied the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal’s case, holding that when allegations do not disclose the basic ingredients of an offence and show abuse of process, quashing is justified.
The Court concluded that the Magistrate’s order of taking cognizance suffered from non-application of mind and that continuing the criminal case would cause grave miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.
Finally, the Patna High Court allowed the petition and quashed the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioners. This judgment once again sends a strong message that false and exaggerated matrimonial complaints cannot be permitted to destroy innocent families and that courts must protect citizens from misuse of criminal machinery in personal disputes.
Explanatory Table – Laws & Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | How It Applied in This Case |
| Section 85, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 | Deals with cruelty in a marital relationship (similar to old 498A IPC). | Court held there was no valid marriage and no credible proof of cruelty, so Section 85 could not apply. |
| Section 115(2), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 | Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt or assault. | No medical evidence or injury record supported the allegation of assault. |
| Section 118(1), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 | Aggravated hurt or serious bodily harm provisions. | Allegations were unsupported and appeared as later improvements. |
| Section 191(2), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 | Criminal intimidation or threat related provisions. | No clear or specific threat was proven against the relatives. |
| Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 | Inherent powers of High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure justice (similar to Section 482 CrPC). | Used by the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings. |
| Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) | Supreme Court warned against implicating entire families in matrimonial cases with vague allegations. | Relied upon to show misuse of criminal law against relatives. |
| Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (2025) | Criminal prosecution cannot continue without specific allegations and material proof. | Supported quashing of proceedings. |
| Rajesh Sharma v. State of UP (2018) | Recognized rampant misuse of matrimonial criminal laws. | Reinforced need for judicial caution. |
| Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal (2025) | Matrimonial offences require existence of a legally valid marriage. | Applied because complainant had no proof of divorce from earlier marriage. |
| State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) | Lays down categories where criminal proceedings can be quashed for abuse of process. | Court held the case fit for quashing under Bhajan Lal principles. |
Case Details
- Case Title: Manju Devi & Ors. vs State of Bihar & Anr.
- Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
- Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 36935 of 2025(Arising out of Complaint Case No. 1535 of 2024, PS Begusarai)
- Date of Judgment: 19 January 2026
- Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra
- Counsels:
- For Petitioners: Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate
- For State: Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar, APP
Key Takeaways
- Vague and omnibus allegations are not enough to drag an entire husband’s family into criminal trials; courts must stop this misuse at the threshold.
- Cruelty allegations fail when there is no shared household, no proximity, and no real interaction between the wife and the in-laws.
- Medical evidence matters—serious assault claims without injury reports or hospital records cannot sustain criminal prosecution.
- No valid marriage means no matrimonial offence; without proof of divorce from a previous marriage, criminal cases collapse legally.
- This judgment reinforces that criminal law cannot be used as a pressure tool in marital disputes and must protect innocent men and their families from legal harassment.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.