Patna High Court
Ram Murti Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 29 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85511 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-763 Year-2019 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna
======================================================
1. Ram Murti Singh, Son Of Late Ram Bahadur Singh Resident Of Bahadur
Bagicha (Behind The House Of Rambabu Singh), P.S. - Bahadurpur, District
- Patna
2. Malti Devi, Wife Of Rammurti Singh Resident Of Bahadur Bagicha (Behind
The House Of Rambabu Singh), P.S. - Bahadurpur, District - Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vijay Jyoti, Wife of Raushal Lall, D/O. Ravindra Kumar Singh Resident Of
Panchwati Colony, House No.117, Near Mahavir Mandir, East Gola Road,
Bailey Road, Danapur Cant, P.S. - Danapur, District - Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nagendra Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Santoh Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 29-08-2025
Heard Mr. Nagendra Kumar, learned counsel for
the petitioners duly assisted by Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh and
Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsels; Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned
counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and Mr. Nirmal Kumar
Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85511 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
2/14
2. The present application has been filed on
behalf of the petitioners for setting aside the order dated
24.03.2022
passed in Danapur P.S. Case No. 763 of 2019 by
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Danapur,
whereby and whereunder the learned Court below has taken
cognizance of the offence under Sections 341, 323, 504,
498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present
application is to the effect that the informant/O.P. No.2 lodged
an FIR stating therein that her marriage was solemnized with
Raushan Lal, son of the petitioners, on 02.12.2015 and her
parents gifted ornaments and articles worth Rs.10,00,000/-. It is
further alleged that the father-in-law i.e., petitioner No.1 had
taken a loan from her aunt to the tune of Rs.10,51,000/- for
constructing a house, however, the same was never returned.
The informant further alleged that immediately after her
marriage, she had gone to her in-law's house at Lodhipur,
Patna where her father-in-law was staying in the police line, all
the accused persons including the petitioners started abusing
the informant/O.P. No.2 alleging that she had not brought
enough dowry along with her. It is further alleged that on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85511 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
various occasion all the named accused persons including the
petitioners used to abuse her and even assault her, and once she
was ousted from the house on 14.11.2016.
4. The informant/O.P. No.2 has further alleged
that the son of the petitioners thereafter filed an application for
restitution of conjugal rights in the year 2017, and the
informant once again, on the basis of the undertaking given by
the son of the petitioners, went to her sasural, however the
torture continued, and there was no change in the attitude of the
in-laws including the petitioners. The informant has alleged
that once the petitioners and her husband had tried to kill her
by putting her on fire, however, she managed to escape.
5. The informant has further alleged that she later
came to know that her husband was not working at Samastipur
Sugar Mill, which she was given to understand, and presently
he was working in some college in Uttar Pradesh. However,
she was never told about the exact place where her husband
was living nor was she taken to the place of his service. The
informant lastly has alleged that from the various sources
including the social media she came to know that her husband
has already performed second marriage with someone and
hence the FIR was being lodged.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85511 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that
the petitioners are the father-in-law and mother-in-law,
respectively, of the informant/O.P. No.2. It has been submitted
by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as a matter of fact
the petitioners resided at their own accommodation at Patna,
where the informant had barely lived along with them, and she
had been living with her husband at Sultanpur in Uttar Pradesh,
where their son is in service with a college and as such the
petitioners have no concern whatsoever with the matrimonial
affairs of their son and as well as the informant.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next
submits that from perusal of the FIR, it would be evident that
there are general and omnibus allegations levelled against the
petitioners and no specific overt act has been alleged with
specific dates and times of such incidents, which she has
alleged in the FIR.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners further
submits that the FIR contains vague allegations against the
petitioners and even on her own saying the petitioners were
living in Patna, while her husband was living in Uttar Pradesh.
9. The learned counsel, thus, submits that in view
of the judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85511 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
the case of Kahkashan Kausar Sonam & Ors. vs State of
Bihar & Ors.; (2022) 6 SCC 599, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has categorically held that ".....general and
omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial
disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the
process of law. Relatives of the husband cannot be forced to
undergo trial in absence of specific allegation of dowry
demand or cruelty."
10. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid
judgement are reproduced as under:-
"14. Further in Preeti Gupta v.
State of Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of
Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3
SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also been observed :
(SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36)
"32. It is a matter of common
experience that most of these complaints
under Section 498-AIPC are filed in the heat
of the moment over trivial issues without
proper deliberations. We come across a
large number of such complaints which are
not even bona fide and are filed with
oblique motive. At the same time, rapid
increase in the number of genuine cases of
dowry harassment is also a matter of
serious concern.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85511 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
17. The abovementioned
decisions clearly demonstrate that this
Court has at numerous instances expressed
concern over the misuse of Section 498-
AIPC and the increased tendency of
implicating relatives of the husband in
matrimonial disputes, without analysing the
long-term ramifications of a trial on the
complainant as well as the accused. It is
further manifest from the said judgments
that false implication by way of general
omnibus allegations made in the course of
matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would
result in misuse of the process of law.
Therefore, this Court by way of its
judgments has warned the courts from
proceeding against the relatives and in-laws
of the husband when no prima facie case is
made out against them."
11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant/O.P. No.2 has stated that there is
specific allegation against the petitioners, who happen to be the
father-in-law and mother-in-law of O.P. No.2 and parents of the
husband of the informant/O.P 2 and in such view of the matter,
the order taking cognizance is perfectly legal and there is no
infirmity in the same. The learned counsel for the
informant/O.P. No.2 submits that the informant could not have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85511 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
given a very detailed description of the atrocities which she has
been facing right since the date of marriage, however, she has
mentioned the incidents which had occurred against her and
were also committed by the present petitioners and, therefore,
there is nothing wrong in the order impugned, as the petitioners
were instrumental in torturing the informant/O.P. No.2 in
connivance with the other co-accused persons including the
husband of the O.P. No.2, and it was on their support that the
husband of the informant/O.P. No.2 has performed a second
marriage.
12. Learned counsel for the informant/O.P. No.2
has pointed out that pursuant to the directions of this Court, he
has filed a counter affidavit bringing on record the number of
cases filed by the informant/O.P. No.2 against the petitioners
and others.
13. From perusal of the said counter affidavit, it
would appear that the informant/O.P. No.2 had filed a
complaint case in the year 2020, being Complaint Case No.
761(C) of 2020 against the petitioners and others. Another case
has been referred to by the learned counsel for the
informant/O.P. No.2, which is stated to have been filed by the
petitioner No.2 being Complaint Case No. 675 of 2020 against
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85511 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
the O.P. No.2 and others in which cognizance has been taken,
and the same has also been challenged before this Hon'ble
Court.
14. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the
petitioners also pointed out that he has also filed a
supplementary affidavit bringing on record the number of cases
filed by the informant/O.P. No.2 and apart from the case, which
has been referred to above by O.P. No.2 in her counter
affidavit, it has been submitted that O.P. No.2 has filed another
case bearing D.V. Case No. 312 of 2020, Danapur P.S. Case
No. 763 of 2019 and the aunt of the informant/O.P. No.2 has
also filed a complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 172(C)
of 2020 against the petitioners and others.
15. Thus, it is submitted by the learned counsel
for the informant/O.P. No.2 that the petitioners are habitual
offenders and have been torturing the O.P. No.2 and for which
the other cases have also been filed and, therefore, the present
application is absolutely misconceived and fit to be dismissed.
16. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties, at the outset, this Court would like to refer to the
written report of the informant/O.P. No.2, wherein general and
omnibus allegations have been levelled without giving specific
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85511 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
dates of the same. It has been observed that the O.P. No.2 has
raised issues which were of the year 2015 and 2016 that is
almost three to four years prior to the filing of the present FIR
and thereafter, she had even agreed in the Matrimonial Case
No. 318 of 2017 and came back to live along with her husband.
17. From a careful consideration of the written
report, it would appear that there are vague allegations levelled
against the petitioners lacking specificity.
18. This Court is reminded of a judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi
Narayana and Ors. vs State of Telangana and Anr.; (2025) 3
SCC 735, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted that
".......a mere reference to the names of the family members in
a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without
specific allegations indicating their active involvement should
be nipped in the bud."
19. The Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid case has
emphasized that such misuse of Section 498(A) to harass the
husband and his family must be curbed. The relevant
paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced hereinunder;-
"27. A mere reference to the
names of family members in a criminal case
arising out of a matrimonial dispute,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85511 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
without specific allegations indicating their
active involvement should be nipped in the
bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out
of judicial experience, that there is often a
tendency to implicate all the members of the
husband's family when domestic disputes
arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such
generalised and sweeping accusations
unsupported by concrete evidence or
particularised allegations cannot form the
basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must
exercise caution in such cases to prevent
misuse of legal provisions and the legal
process and avoid unnecessary harassment
of innocent family members. In the present
case, Appellants 2 to 6, who are the
members of the family of Appellant 1 have
been living in different cities and have not
resided in the matrimonial house of
Appellant 1 and Respondent 2 herein.
Hence, they cannot be dragged into
criminal prosecution and the same would be
an abuse of the process of the law in the
absence of specific allegations made against
each of them.
33. Further, this Court in
Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [Preeti
Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC
667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] held that the
courts have to be extremely careful and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85511 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
cautious in dealing with these complaints
and must take pragmatic realties into
consideration while dealing with
matrimonial cases. The allegations of
harassment by the husband's close relatives
who had been living in different cities and
never visited or rarely visited the place
where the complainant resided would have
an entirely different complexion. The
allegations of the complainant are required
to be scrutinised with great care and
circumspection."
20. In Archin Gupta vs. State of Haryana &
Anr; (2025) 3 SCC 756, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
Section 498(A) IPC should not be applied mechanically. The
Court had observed that "......minor marital issues were often
exaggerated by the wife's family which lead to misuse of
police machinery to harass the husband. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed that many times, the parents including the close
relatives of the wife make a mountain out of a mole. It
observed that instead of salvaging the situation and making all
possible endeavours to save the marriage, their action either
due to ignorance or on account of sheer hatred towards the
husband and his family members, brings about complete
destruction of marriage on trivial issues. The first thing that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85511 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
comes in the mind of the wife, her parents and her relatives is
the police, as if the police is the panacea of all evil".
21. In judgment rendered in Kahkashan Kausar
(supra) the Hon'ble Court had held that ".....a criminal trial
leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon
the accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be
discouraged."
22. In Sushila & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.;
2025 SCC OnLine SC 804, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
quashed the proceedings against the appellants and observed
that "...the complaint was lodged under Section 498(A) of the
IPC and after three years of ex-parte divorce, based on a single
incident occurring post-divorce. The Court had observed in
absence of any specific allegation against the relatives of
husband the proceedings against him would amount to a
vexatious trial."
23. As this Court has observed that there have
been other cases also filed by the informant/O.P. No.2 against
the petitioners and others. This Court is reminded of another
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Geddam Jhansi & Anr. vs state of Telangana & Ors.; 2025
SCC OnLine SC 263, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85511 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
remarked ".....in the context of matrimonial disputes, emotions
run high, and as such in the complaints filed alleging
harassment or domestic violence, there may be a tendency to
implicate other members of the family who do not come to the
rescue of the complainant or remain mute spectators to any
alleged incident of harassment, which in our view cannot by
itself constitute a criminal act without there being specific acts
attributed to them. Further, when tempers run high and
relationships turn bitter, there is also a propensity to exaggerate
the allegations, which does not necessarily mean that such
domestic disputes should be given the colour of criminality."
24. From the discussions above and in view of
the various judicial pronouncements, it is clear that implicating
all relatives without making specific allegations and attributing
offending acts to them and proceedings against them without
prima facie evidence that they were complicit and had actively
participated in the domestic violence would amount to abuse of
the process of law.
25. Thus, in light of the discussion made
hereinabove and in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, I find that the order dated 24.03.2022, referred to above,
whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85511 of 2023 dt.29-08-2025
offences alleged under Sections 341, 323, 504, 498(A) of the
IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is
untenable in law and is, therefore, set aside.
26. Accordingly, the application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 05.08.2025
Uploading Date 30.08.2025
Transmission Date 30.08.2025
