The Jharkhand High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a mother-in-law and sister-in-law, ruling that preventing a woman from entering her matrimonial home and insulting her does not legally constitute cruelty, restraint, or threat.Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary was dealing with a plea of a mother-in-law and sister-in-law seeking quash of FIR and criminal proceedings in a dowry demand and cruelty case.“The only allegation against the petitioners is that the 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, so, in the considered opinion of this court, even if the entire allegation made against the petitioners is considered to be true in its entirety, still the same is insufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 85 (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of the BNS, 2023,” the November 4 order said.Also Read | Dowry cases on rise but can’t blanketly quash FIR against in-laws: Karnataka High CourtThe court observed that allowing the prosecution to proceed against the mother-in-law and sister-in-law would be an abuse of the court’s process, justifying the quashing of the proceedings and the orders taking cognisance and framing charges against them.Wife alleges dowry demand, crueltyThe wife filed a complaint in 2024 alleging that her husband assaulted her and demanded dowry. She also leveled allegations against another woman, alleging an illicit relationship with her husband, financial demands of Ra 3 lakh rupees, and threats. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary said that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of threatening the woman in any manner.Regarding the two petitioners, who are the informant’s mother-in-law and sister-in-law, the allegations were limited to claims that they insulted her and did not allow her to enter her matrimonial home.Following their investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the petitioners, and the trial court took cognisance of offences against them.Story continues below this adThe petitioners then approached the high court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings and the lower court’s orders taking cognisance and framing charges.They argued that the allegations against them were vague, general, and failed to meet the specific legal elements of any of the charged offences, as the specific acts of assault, threatening, and dowry demands were attributed to other individuals.Insult does not amount to offence: OrderOn the allegations of causing hurt, the court observed that the essential requirement is that the accused voluntarily caused bodily pain, disease, or infirmity with the intent or knowledge to cause hurt. Since the allegation of assault was exclusively against the informant’s husband and there was no claim that the petitioners caused any physical harm, the court held that this offence was not made out.Also Read | No divorce for husband who drove wife away with dowry demands, rules courtIt noted that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of threatening the woman in any manner. It added that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioners is considered to be true in its entirety, still, the offence of criminal intimidation is not made out against either of the petitioners.Story continues below this adThe court stated that while the petitioners were accused of insulting the informant, there was no allegation that the insult was intended or likely to provoke her to break the public peace or commit another offence.