Patna High Court
Meera Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 10 July, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49305 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2023 Thana- MAHILA THANA District- Begusarai
======================================================
1. Meera Devi Wife of Ashok Kumar Rai R/O Bagha, Ward no. 29, P.S.-
Lohiya Nagar, Dist.- Begusarai
2. Ashok Kumar @ Ashok Kumar Ray Son of Krishnadev Rai R/O Bagha,
Ward no. 29, P.S.- Lohiya Nagar, Dist.- Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Sarita Kumari Daughter of Rajaram Rai R/O Vill.- Jainagar, Ward no. 01,
Amarpur, P.S.- Chakiya, O.P., Barauni, Dist.- Begusarai
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-07-2025
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the parties.
2. Present petition is filed by the petitioners under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the cognizance order
dated 13.12.2023 as passed by Court of learned SDJM,
Begusarai, whereby and where under the learned Court took
cognizance against these petitioners in Mahila P.S. Case No.
08 of 2023 for the offence punishable u/s 498-A, 504, 506,
406, 354/34 of the I.P.C. and section 3 /4 of D.P. Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49305 of 2024 dt.10-07-2025
3. Prosecution story in brief speaks that O.P. No. 2
namely, Sarita Kumari solemnized her marriage with one
Vikash Kumar on 30.01.2020 according to Hindu rituals. On
pretext of marriage parents of OP. No. 2 gifted Rs. 5 lacs of
furniture, ornaments and one Apache motorcycle etc. to
husband of O.P. No. 2 but after 4 to 5 days all accused
persons named in F.I.R. demanded further Rs. 2 lacs and one
four wheeler vehicle and due to non fulfillment of aforesaid
demand of dowry they started torturing her mentally and
physically. Further, a panchayati was commenced but accused
persons did not accepted the terms set out by mediators. It is
also alleged that one Saroj Kumar (Nandoshi of the
informant) came at village Rajaura and tried to commit rape
upon her.
4. After completion of investigation police
submitted charge-sheet against husband of O.P. No. 2
namely, Vikash Kumar and both petitioners namely, Meera
Devi, who is mother-in-law and Ashok Kumar @ Ashok Kumar
Ray, who is father-in-law. Learned trial court upon perusal of
materials available on record also took cognizance for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49305 of 2024 dt.10-07-2025
offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 498-A, 504,
506, 354/34 of the I.P.C. and section 3/4 of D.P. Act against
above named three accused persons agreeing with the
charge-sheet.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners that upon perusal of FIR, it appears that
allegation qua demand of dowry and also of mental and
physical assault appears very much general and omnibus
against petitioners, who are mother-in-law and father-in-law.
It is submitted that they have least concern with daily and
domestic affairs of O.P. No. 2 and her husband namely,
Vikash Kumar. It is submitted that the thrust of allegations is
available against husband of O.P. No. 2 and also one Saroj
Kumar (Nandosi) regarding attempt of rape, which upon
investigation found false. It is pointed out that the implication
of petitioners with present case appears only for the reason
that they are parents of the husband of O.P. No. 2 and for
same oblique and ulterior motive, the present malicious
prosecution was lodged against them.
6. It is submitted that in view of aforesaid factual
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49305 of 2024 dt.10-07-2025
aspect present proceeding before learned trial court
considering legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as
available through Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
as reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083, this case is fit to
be quashed/ set aside against petitioners.
submitted that petitioners being in-laws actively participated
in the occurrence. It is submitted that they are living together,
however, he could not disputed the factual and legal
submissions as advanced above by learned counsel for the
petitioner.
8. It would be further apposite to reproduce
paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 14 ,15, 16 & 17 of Abhishek Case
(supra), which read as:-
12. The contours of the power to quash criminal
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are well defined.
In V. Ravi Kumar v. State represented by Inspector of
Police, District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu
[(2019) 14 SCC 568], this Court affirmed that where an
accused seeks quashing of the FIR, invoking the
inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, it is wholly
impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual
arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in
the complaint. In Neeharika Infrastructure (P). Ltd. v.
State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021,
decided on 13.04.2021], a 3-Judge Bench of this Court
elaborately considered the scope and extent of the
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was observed that
the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly,
with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, such
standard not being confused with the norm formulated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49305 of 2024 dt.10-07-2025
in the context of the death penalty. It was further
observed that while examining the FIR/complaint,
quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark
upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made therein, but if the
Court thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of
quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, and
more particularly, the parameters laid down by this
Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC
866) and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp
(1) SCC 335], the Court would have jurisdiction to
quash the FIR/complaint.
13. Instances of a husband's family members filing a
petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against
them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are
neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty
abound on this score. We may now take note of some
decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan
Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC
599], this Court had occasion to deal with a similar
situation where the High Court had refused to quash a
FIR registered for various offences, including Section
498A IPC. Noting that the foremost issue that required
determination was whether allegations made against the
in-laws were general omnibus allegations which would
be liable to be quashed, this Court referred to earlier
decisions wherein concern was expressed over the
misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency
to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial
disputes. This Court observed that false implications by
way of general omnibus allegations made in the course
of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result
in misuse of the process of law. On the facts of that
case, it was found that no specific allegations were made
against the in-laws by the wife and it was held that
allowing their prosecution in the absence of clear
allegations against the in-laws would result in an abuse
of the process of law. It was also noted that a criminal
trial, leading to an eventual acquittal, would inflict
severe scars upon the accused and such an exercise
ought to be discouraged.
14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7
SCC 667], this Court noted that the tendency to
implicate the husband and all his immediate relations is
also not uncommon in complaints filed under Section
498A IPC. It was observed that the Courts have to be
extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these
complaints and must take pragmatic realities into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases, as
allegations of harassment by husband's close relations,
who were living in different cities and never visited or
rarely visited the place where the complainant resided,
would add an entirely different complexion and such
allegations would have to be scrutinised with great care
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49305 of 2024 dt.10-07-2025
and circumspection.
15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC
184], this Court observed that the mere mention of
statutory provisions and the language thereof, for
lodging a complaint, is not the 'be all and end all' of the
matter, as what is required to be brought to the notice of
the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by
each and every accused and the role played by each and
every accused in the commission of that offence. These
observations were made in the context of a matrimonial
dispute involving Section 498A IPC.
16. Of more recent origin is the decision of this Court in
Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 2341
of 2023, decided on 08.08.2023) on the legal principles
applicable apropos Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therein, it was
observed that when an accused comes before the High
Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the
criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground
that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of
wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the
High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care
and a little more closely. It was further observed that it
will not be enough for the Court to look into the
averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the
purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary
ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are
disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious
proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many
other attending circumstances emerging from the record
of the case over and above the averments and, if need
be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read
between the lines.
17. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court had set out, by
way of illustration, the broad categories of cases in
which the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
could be exercised. Para 102 of the decision reads as
follows:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court
in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such
power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49305 of 2024 dt.10-07-2025
power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first informant report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of
the same do not disclose the commission of any offence
and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent persons can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge."
9. In view of aforesaid factual and legal submission
and by taking note of the fact as allegation qua demand of
dowry along with physical and mental torture appears very
much general and omnibus against petitioners, who are in-
laws and, moreover, the implication appears prima-facie only
being parents of husband of O.P. No. 2, accordingly, by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49305 of 2024 dt.10-07-2025
taking a guiding note of Abhishek case (supra), the
impugned order of cognizance dated 13.12.2023 as passed
by learned SDJM, Begusarai qua both above-named
petitioners alongwith all its consequential proceedings is
hereby quashed/set aside,.
10. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.
11. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the
learned trial court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 11.07.2025
Transmission Date 11.07.2025
