The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 341, 323, 498A, and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against a mother-in-law, ruling that general allegations of taunting, harassment, or failing to restrain her son do not satisfy the legal threshold of cruelty or common intention without a factual foundation.

The Court set aside the Patna High Court's order refusing to quash the proceedings against her, observing that the allegations against relatives of the husband were omnibus and lacked specific conduct establishing the charged offences.

The Bench of  Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice NK Singh held, "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."

AOR Surabhi Sanchita appeared for the Appellant, while AOR Azmat Hayat Amanullah appeared for the Respondents

Brief Facts

The Appellant, who is the mother-in-law of Respondent No. 2/Complainant, filed an appeal assailing the order passed by the Patna High Court refusing to quash the criminal proceedings against her.

An FIR was filed by the Complainant for the offences under Sections 354, 379, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 504 and 34 IPC; simultaneously, congnizance was taken.

The complainant alleged that the Accused Persons harassed her. It was 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 High Court had 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.

Contentions of the Parties

The Appellant submitted that the allegations did not disclose the ingredients of the offences appearing in the charge sheet and that the criminal proceedings could not have been retained.

Per contra, the respondents relied upon the allegations of abuse, assault and removal of jewellery. 

Observations/Findings of the Court

While relying on the judgments in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, [1992] and Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar, [2022], the Court noted that these principles permit interference of the Court where the allegations do not constitute an offence and caution against compelling relatives of the husband to face trial on general and omnibus allegations.

"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 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", the Court observed.

The Court also noted that for Section 504 IPC, neither the words used nor the facts showing an intentional insult likely to provoke a breach of peace were stated. It added that Section 34 IPC cannot supply the essential facts of the principal offences.

The Court concluded 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.

Accordingly, the Appeal was allowed, and the impugned final order was set aside to the extent that it declined to quash the criminal proceedings against the Appellant.

Cause Title: Prabha Devi v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Appearances:

Appellant: AOR Surabhi Sanchita and Advocate Pratap Singh

Respondents: AORs Azmat Hayat Amanullah and S. Parthasarathi, Advocate Vanshita Gupta

Click here to read/download the Order

Tags: