Click the Play button to listen to article

The Jharkhand HC has held that allegations of a mother-in-law and sister-in-law refusing to allow a woman to enter her matrimonial home and insulting her were insufficient, in the facts of the case, to constitute cruelty under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The Court quashed criminal proceedings against the two women, finding that the allegations against them did not satisfy the ingredients of the offences charged.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary was hearing a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, challenging the cognizance order dated August 21, 2025, and the order framing charges dated August 10, 2026, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga.

The case arose from a complaint filed by a woman against her husband and others. She alleged that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law had prevented her from entering her matrimonial house at Lowadih and had insulted her. The allegations of assault and taking dowry were directed against her husband, Sujeet Madhukar Toppo, while the allegation of threatening was against Artima Xess, a woman with whom the complainant alleged her husband was having an illicit relationship. A demand of Rs.3 lakh was also alleged against Artima Xess.

Following investigation, the police filed a chargesheet against the petitioners, among others, under Sections 85, 115(2), 126(2), 352 and 351(2) BNS. The Magistrate subsequently took cognizance and framed charges for these offences. Challenging the proceedings, the petitioners submitted that there was no allegation that either of them had assaulted, caused hurt to or threatened the complainant. They further argued that merely preventing her from entering the matrimonial home and insulting her did not constitute cruelty under Section 85 BNS.

The State opposed the petition, contending that the allegations were sufficient to sustain the charges. Examining the allegations under Section 115(2) BNS, the High Court noted that the accusation of assault was directed exclusively against the complainant's husband. The Bench observed that even if the allegations against the petitioners were accepted in their entirety, no offence of voluntarily causing hurt was made out against them.

Similarly, regarding Section 351(2) BNS, the Court found that the allegation of threatening was specifically against Artima Xess and not the petitioners. Turning to Section 85 BNS, the Court observed:

“The only allegation against the petitioners is that that petitioners did not allow the informant to enter into her ancestral matrimonial house and they insulted her and apart from that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners.”

The Court held that even if these allegations were accepted as true in their entirety, they were insufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 85 BNS.

It further concluded that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings against the mother-in-law and sister-in-law, including the orders dated August 21, 2025, taking cognizance and August 10, 2026, framing charges.

Appearance:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Suraj Verma, Advocate; Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate

For the State: Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Special Public Prosecutor

For Opposite Party No. 2: None


Tags: