Rajasthan High Court Asserts that Criminal Complaints in Family Disputes Should Be Given Due Consideration, Not Treated Casually

The Rajasthan High Court recently underscored that criminal complaints arising from family disputes should not be treated lightly and must be thoroughly examined before legal action is taken [Gordhan Lal and 2 Others vs State of Rajasthan].
Justice Arun Monga observed that when one family member accuses another of criminal behaviour in a complaint before a magistrate, both the magistrate and the police must exercise caution and discretion before deciding to register a First Information Report (FIR).
In such sensitive matters, the Court emphasized that the primary goal should be to restore familial harmony rather than escalate tensions. “In these cases, it is crucial to approach them carefully, prioritizing reconciliation over conflict,” the Court stated. It further advised magistrates to personally inquire about the allegations through verbal questions or other methods to ensure the complainant clearly understands their claims, thereby discouraging frivolous or false accusations.
The Court highlighted the tendency for affidavits to be treated as mere formalities in family disputes, particularly in cases involving close relatives. Magistrates, it noted, must be cautious only when accepting generic templates with proper verification.
These observations were made in a case where a 72-year-old woman sought the quashing of an FIR filed against her daughter, son-in-law, and granddaughter. In her complaint, the woman accused her family members of taking her property, including cash and jewellery. The FIR was registered following an order from the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in Bikaner.
Upon reviewing the FIR, the Court found no evidence supporting the alleged offences and criticized the magistrate for approving the FIR registration without a thorough examination. The Court pointed out that while the CJM’s order followed the procedural framework of Section 175, it needed a more detailed analysis of the material presented by the complainant and to explain why the police report met the required judicial standards.
The Court further criticized the magistrate’s decision as a “rubber-stamp” response to the police report, calling it a failure of judicial oversight in family disputes. “The application of Section 175(3) BNSS was made without any justification, and the decision to register the FIR was primarily based on the police’s initial findings without due diligence,” it noted.
Regarding the allegations, the Court clarified that issues like the refusal to return money or jewellery lent by the complainant to her family members are civil matters, not criminal offences. The dispute, the Court concluded, had been inaccurately framed as a criminal issue.
“Such allegations are of a purely civil nature, and no criminal charges should have been applied,” the Court ruled while quashing the FIR.
The Court further stressed that criminal courts should not be used to settle personal grievances or to gain an unfair advantage in familial disputes. It also advised magistrates in family matters, especially those involving close relatives, to aim for solutions that preserve family unity.
“Magistrates should focus on fostering reconciliation in family disputes, creating an atmosphere that supports the preservation of family relationships,” the Court stated. It emphasized the long-term benefits of resolving family disputes amicably for the immediate parties and future generations.
Advocates Chetan Prakash Soni and Sarita Soni represented the petitioners, while Public Prosecutor Vikram Singh Rajpurohit represented the State.