The Jharkhand High Court has held that the refusal of a mother-in-law and sister-in-law to allow a woman entry into her matrimonial residence, coupled with insults directed at her, does not satisfy the statutory ingredients of cruelty under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary quashed the criminal proceedings pending against the two petitioners, observing that the continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, challenging the order dated August 21, 2025, whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga, took cognizance of the offences, and the subsequent order dated August 10, 2026, framing charges. The complaint originated from a woman who alleged that her husband, Sujeet Madhukar Toppo, had assaulted her and demanded dowry. She further alleged that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law prevented her from entering the matrimonial house at Lowadih and insulted her. A separate allegation of threatening was levelled against Artima Xess, with whom the complainant claimed her husband had an illicit relationship, along with a demand for Rs 3 lakh.
Following the investigation, the police submitted a chargesheet against the petitioners and others under Sections 85, 115(2), 126(2), 352 and 351(2) of the BNS. The Magistrate took cognizance and framed charges accordingly. The petitioners contended that the First Information Report contained no averment that they had assaulted, caused hurt to, or threatened the complainant. They submitted that the acts of preventing entry and insulting the complainant did not constitute the offence of cruelty as defined under Section 85 BNS.
What constitutes cruelty under Section 85 BNS according to the Jharkhand High Court?
The Court ruled that mere refusal to allow a daughter-in-law entry into the matrimonial home and insulting her, without any allegation of assault, hurt, or threat to life or health, does not meet the threshold for cruelty under Section 85 BNS. Such acts are insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings against in-laws.
Examining the specific charges, the Bench noted that the allegation of assault under Section 115(2) BNS was directed exclusively against the husband. Even accepting the prosecution case in its entirety, the Court found that no offence of voluntarily causing hurt was made out against the petitioners. With regard to Section 351(2) BNS concerning criminal intimidation, the Court observed that the specific allegation of threatening was levelled solely against Artima Xess, not the petitioners.
Addressing the core charge under Section 85 BNS, the Court stated that the only allegations against the petitioners were that they did not allow the informant to enter her ancestral matrimonial house and insulted her, and apart from that there was absolutely no allegation against them. The Bench 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.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the entire criminal proceedings against the mother-in-law and sister-in-law, including the orders taking cognizance and framing charges.
Provision (BNS) | Offence | Allegation Against Petitioners | Court Finding |
|---|---|---|---|
Section 85 | Cruelty by husband or relatives | Refused entry to matrimonial home; insulted complainant | Insufficient to constitute cruelty; proceedings quashed |
Section 115(2) | Voluntarily causing hurt | None (allegation against husband only) | No offence made out against petitioners |
Section 351(2) | Criminal intimidation | None (allegation against Artima Xess only) | No offence made out against petitioners |
The petitioners were represented by Advocates Suraj Verma and Anjani Kumar. Special Public Prosecutor Shailendra Kr. Tiwari appeared for the State.