DR. SUSHIL KUMAR PURBEY & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

                 [2026] 3 S.C.R. 293 : 2026 INSC 212

                   Dr. Sushil Kumar Purbey & Anr.
                                  v.
                     The State of Bihar and Ors.
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 1234 of 2026)
                                09 March 2026
              [Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose whether the High Court erred in granting the relief of
       quashing 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-parents-in-laws.

                                  Headnotes†
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 –
       ss.341, 323, 498A and 34 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – ss.3
       and 4 – Dowry case against in-laws – Quashing of criminal
       proceedings – FIR by complainant-wife against her husband,
       parents-in-law-appellants, and sister-in-law alleging that she
       was subjected to persistent torture and cruelty, on account of
       dowry demands, that the husband physically assaulted her,
       and on the day FIR was filed, accused persons, attempted
       to strangulate her – Seperate complaint filed before Judicial
       Magistrate making further allegations against the accused
       persons – Appellants filed application for anticipatory bail,
       which was allowed – Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of
       the offences – Petition by parents-in-laws and sister-in-law
       seeking quashing of the order whereby Judicial Magistrate
       taking cognizance of the offences – High Court quashed the
       proceedings against sister-in-law, however dismissed the
       petition as regards the appellants – Correctness:
       Held: High Court erred in restricting the quashing of criminal
       proceedings only to the sister-in-law – Comparative reading of the
       FIR reveals that the allegations levelled against the sister-in-law
       and those against the appellants are, in all material particulars,



* Author
294                                                             [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       identical – FIR does not assign any specific or overt act to either
       appellant; there are no particular dates, places, or individual acts
       attributed to them – Lone allegation that stands separately against
       the appellants is that they would quarrel does not constitute
       a criminal offence and cannot, by itself, sustain cognizance of
       the offences for which the appellants have been summoned –
       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
       appellants, and there is no principled basis for distinguishing
       between them – Husband filed the divorce petition as early as 21
       months after the marriage – Criminal complaint against appellants
       was, however, lodged 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
       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
       considerations are read together, continuation of the criminal
       proceedings against the appellants cannot be sustained – 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 appellants
       and sister-in-law are, in substance, the same, the reasoning that
       led the High Court to quash the proceedings against sister-in-law
       ought equally to have led to the quashing of proceedings against
       the appellants – Impugned order, to the extent that it declined to
       extend such relief to the appellants, cannot be sustained and set
       aside. [Paras 10, 11]

                                  List of Acts
       Penal Code, 1860; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Hindu Marriage
       Act, 1955; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                               List of Keywords
       Dowry demands; Anticipatory bail; Cognizance of the offences by
       Judicial Magistrate; Quashing of proceedings.
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                       295

     Dr. Sushil Kumar Purbey & Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.


                           Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     1234 of 2026
     From the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2023 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Patna in CRLM No. 70355 of 2022

                        Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant(s):
     Shivam Singh, Rohit Kumar Singh, Lal Babu Singh, Rana Prashant,
     Akash Kumar, Mahender Rathour.
     Advs. for the Respondent(s):
     Bharat Sangal, Sr. Adv., Anshul Narayan, Mrs. Vineeta Singh,
     Anshuman Harsh, Prem Prakash, Hemant Kumar Tripathi,
     Nagarkatti Kartik Uday.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                               Judgment

     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 mother-in-law of
     the complainant (respondent no. 2).
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 Section 13 of the Hindu
296                                                             [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                                    Supreme Court Reports


                Marriage Act, 19551, 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 Information Report2 No.
                81/2022 was registered under Sections 341, 323, 498A and 34
                of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, and Sections 3 and 4 of the
                Dowry Prohibition Act, 19614, 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 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.



1   In short “HMA”
2   In short “FIR”
3   Hereinafter, referred to as “IPC”.
4   Hereinafter, referred to as “Dowry Act”.
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                           297

      Dr. Sushil Kumar Purbey & Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.


      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 Procedure, 19735 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-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


5    Hereinafter, referred to as “CrPC”.
298                                                           [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       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 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 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
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                       299

     Dr. Sushil Kumar Purbey & Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.


     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.
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 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
300                                                        [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                               Supreme Court Reports


       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.


       Result of the case: Criminal appeal allowed.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain