In Dr. Sushil Kumar Purbey & Anr. vs State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of parity in quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC [Section 528 BNSS] in matrimonial disputes.

The case arose from a dowry harassment FIR filed by the complainant against her husband and his family members. While the High Court quashed proceedings against the sister-in-law on the ground of vague and omnibus allegations, it declined similar relief to the parents-in-law.

Aggrieved by this differential treatment, the appellants approached the Supreme Court. The Court, upon examining the FIR, held that:

• The allegations against all accused were identical in nature.
• No specific role or overt act was attributed to the parents-in-law.
• Differential treatment by the High Court was unsustainable in law.

Consequently, the Court extended the benefit of quashing to the parents-in-law as well, reiterating that criminal law cannot be invoked on the basis of generalised allegations.

“7. 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.”

“7. 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.”

“8. 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 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.”

“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.”

Decision

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order to the extent it denied relief to the parents-in-law. It held that identical allegations must be treated uniformly, and differential treatment is legally unsustainable.
• The Court emphasized that vague and omnibus allegations without specific roles cannot sustain criminal prosecution. It further noted that the delay in filing the FIR, coupled with absence of specific allegations, supported the inference of misuse.
• Accordingly, exercising its powers under Section 482 CrPC [Section 528 BNSS], the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants.
• However, the Court clarified that proceedings against the husband would continue independently in accordance with law.

Citation : 2026 INSC 212

Other Sources :

Index of Quash judgements is here.

Key Contributor :
Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.
+91-9606345150