498A Cannot Become a Dragnet for Entire Family: Orissa High Court Shields Distant In-Laws but Sends Husband to Trial

“At Quashing Stage, No Mini-Trial — But Vague Allegations Against Distant Relatives Cannot Survive”, In a calibrated ruling that seeks to balance protection of genuine victims of matrimonial cruelty with safeguards against vexatious prosecution of relatives, the Orissa High Court has partly allowed petitions seeking quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of a dowry and cruelty complaint.

Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi refused to quash proceedings against the husband under Sections 498A, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but quashed the case against his parents and sister residing separately in Delhi. The Court also upheld the rejection of a recall application under Section 311 CrPC in connected Domestic Violence proceedings.

Marriage, Divorce Petition, and Criminal Case

The marriage between the husband and wife was solemnised in July 2021. The couple resided primarily in Mumbai and Pune due to professional commitments. The parents-in-law and sister-in-law were permanent residents of Delhi and were not part of the matrimonial household.

On 04.12.2023, the wife left the matrimonial home. The husband filed a divorce petition on 19.01.2024. Subsequently, on 12.03.2024, the wife lodged FIR No. 202/2024 at Chandrasekharpur Police Station alleging offences under Sections 294, 323, 498A, 406, 506 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the husband and his family members.

Parallel proceedings were initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The husband and his family invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the FIR. In the connected petition, the wife challenged the Magistrate’s order rejecting her application under Section 311 CrPC to recall herself for marking additional documents in the DV case.

“Inherent Power Must Be Exercised Sparingly”

At the outset, the Court reiterated the settled principles governing quashing jurisdiction.

Relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and CBI v. Aryan Singh, the Court observed that at the quashing stage, the High Court cannot conduct a “mini-trial” or evaluate the sufficiency of evidence. The test is whether the uncontroverted allegations, taken at face value, disclose commission of an offence.

The Court cautioned that matrimonial disputes often involve emotional narratives from both sides, and judicial scrutiny must strike a balance between protecting genuine victims and preventing misuse of criminal law.

Prima Facie Case Against Husband: Proceedings to Continue

The husband contended that the FIR was a counterblast to the divorce petition and relied on a written “no-dowry agreement,” absence of medical evidence, and alleged inconsistencies in the wife’s statements.

The Court rejected these contentions at the threshold stage.

It held that the FIR contained specific allegations of cruelty, abuse, physical assault, and dowry demands attributable to the husband. Witness statements cited in the charge-sheet, including that of the wife’s brother, prima facie supported these allegations.

“The existence of a written ‘no-dowry agreement’… is not conclusive proof of innocence at this stage.”

The Court further held that absence of medical records is not fatal in matrimonial cruelty cases, as victims may not immediately seek medical aid due to familial pressure.

“This case does not fall in the category where allegations are so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person could believe them.”

Accordingly, the Court refused to quash proceedings against Petitioner No.1 (husband), directing that his guilt or innocence be tested at trial.

“Omnibus Allegations Against Distant In-Laws Cannot Sustain Prosecution”

The position of Petitioners No.2 to 4 — the parents-in-law and sister-in-law — was found to be materially different.

The Court noted that they were residing permanently in Delhi and were not part of the matrimonial home in Maharashtra. The FIR contained only generic assertions that “all the accused harassed her,” without specific dates, incidents, or overt acts attributable to them.

The charge-sheet lacked independent corroborative material connecting them to the alleged cruelty or dowry demands.

Invoking Kahkashan Kausar, Preeti Gupta, and Geeta Mehrotra, the Court observed that indiscriminate implication of relatives in matrimonial disputes has been repeatedly deprecated by the Supreme Court.

“False implication by way of general omnibus allegations… if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law.”

The Court laid down guiding parameters for assessing quashing petitions involving in-laws, including identifiable role, proximity and opportunity, nexus with alleged acts, and presence of supporting material in the charge-sheet.

Applying these principles, the Court concluded:

“The allegations against them are entirely casual, lacking the detail necessary to constitute their participation.”

Continuing proceedings against distant relatives, in absence of specific material, would amount to harassment and abuse of process.

Accordingly, proceedings were quashed against Petitioners No.2 to 4.

Section 311 CrPC Cannot Be Used to Fill Lacunae

In CRLMC No. 4690 of 2025, the wife challenged the rejection of her application under Section 311 CrPC seeking recall of PW-1 in the Domestic Violence proceeding after closure of evidence.

The High Court found no infirmity in the Magistrate’s order.

The recall application had been filed after closure of evidence from both sides and at the stage of final arguments. The documents sought to be introduced were within the applicant’s knowledge from inception.

“The power under Section 311 CrPC is discretionary and must be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice, not to fill lacunae.”

Relying on Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, the Court held that Section 311 cannot be invoked to patch up weaknesses or protract proceedings, particularly in summary and time-bound DV proceedings.

The Magistrate’s refusal was held to be a sound exercise of discretion.

“Criminal Law Cannot Become Instrument of Retaliation”

In a reflective observation, the Court acknowledged that matrimonial prosecutions often arise from deeply personal grievances and conflicting narratives.

The judiciary must tread cautiously, recognising both the possibility of genuine cruelty and the risk of exaggeration.

This case, the Court held, warranted a calibrated approach — allowing trial to proceed against the husband while protecting distant in-laws from unwarranted prosecution.

CRLMC was partly allowed. Criminal proceedings in FIR No. 202/2024 were quashed against Petitioners No.2 to 4 (in-laws), but sustained against Petitioner No.1 (husband).

CRLMC No. 4690 of 2025 was dismissed. The order of JMFC-II, Bhubaneswar rejecting recall of PW-1 in the DV proceeding was affirmed, and the trial court was directed to proceed expeditiously.

The judgment reinforces a nuanced principle: while cruelty and dowry offences must be tried with seriousness, criminal law cannot be allowed to operate as a sweeping dragnet against every relative absent specific and credible allegations.

Date of Decision: 13 February 2026