Patna High Court
Rahul Sinha vs The State Of Bihar on 14 July, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64821 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9303 Year-2022 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
1. Rahul Sinha S/O- Sri Ajay Kumar Mohalla- Nagina Nagar Vasudeo Path
Near Baba Khatal Kumhrar Ps- Agamkuan Dist- Patna Presently Building
no-32, Batapati Nivasam Opp. to Vasuki Apartments, Vayunandana Layout
Kemapura Hebbal Banglore
2. Vinita Sinha wife of Rarhul Sinha Mohalla- Nagina Nagar Vasudeo Path
Near Baba Khatal Kumhrar Ps- Agamkuan Dist- Patna Presently Building
no-32, Batapati Nivasam Opp. to Vasuki Apartments, Vayunandana Layout
Kemapura Hebbal Banglore
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Manisha Patel Wife Of Chandan Sinha, D/O- Sri Dhananjay Kumar Village-
Vijaruk Mohiuddinpur Fatuha Ps- Fatuha Dist- Patna Presently At Mig-231,
Hanuman Nagar Ps- Patrakar Nagar Dist- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prasoon Shekhar, Adv
: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv
: Mr. Ankit Kumar, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Sharda Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 14-07-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present quashing petition has been
preferred to quash the order taking cognizance dated
24.05.2023
passed in Complaint Case No. 9303 (C) of
2022, where learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64821 of 2023 dt.14-07-2025
Sadar, Patna took cognizance for the offence punishable
under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short
IPC).
3. The prosecution story as it appears from the
complaint petition is that complainant was married to accused
Chandan Sinha on 17.05.2019 in Patna, where dowry was
given by her father for about Rs. 20 lakhs in cash and gifts
worth of Rs. 5 lakhs. After a brief peaceful period, she was
allegedly harassed by her in-laws and husband for not
bringing a car as dowry. Complainant was verbally abused,
assaulted, confined, and pressured to fulfill dowry demands.
Despite accompanying her husband to Baroda, complainant
was continuously abused, including physical assault and
drunken behavior. Complainant got a job in Chandigarh but
was forced to hand over her salary, and upon refusal, faced
further violence. The harassment allegedly intensified when
complainant resumed working from her matrimonial home.
Her in-laws, including mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and
sister-in-law, taunted her and also, threw her laptop, and
allegedly tried to set her on fire. Locals intervened and saved
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64821 of 2023 dt.14-07-2025
her. After being ousted from her matrimonial home,
complainant stayed with her cousin. Her husband allegedly
attacked her in a drunken state.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submitted that from the perusal of complaint,
no prima facie case is made out against petitioners for the
reasons that petitioner no(s). 1 & 2 are brother-in-law &
sister-in-law. It is submitted that petitioners are living
separately and having no connection with their daily and
domestic affairs. It is submitted that their implication
appears due to relative of husband of O.P. No. 2 with
ulterior and oblique motive, suggesting harassing
attitude. It is a classical case of malicious prosecution and
misuse of provisions of Section 498-A of Indian Penal
Code. While concluding the argument, it is submitted that
even from the perusal of complaint petition, the allegation
qua petitioners is appearing very much general and
omnibus.
5. In support of his submissions, learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64821 of 2023 dt.14-07-2025
counsel relied upon the legal reports of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as available through Abhishek Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh, [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083].
6. Learned APP appearing for the State while
opposing the application submitted that petitioners being
in-laws played active role towards alleged mental and
physical cruelty to O.P. No. 2, by raising demand of
dowry.
7. It would be apposite to reproduce relevant
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,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64821 of 2023 dt.14-07-2025
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64821 of 2023 dt.14-07-2025
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64821 of 2023 dt.14-07-2025
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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64821 of 2023 dt.14-07-2025
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64821 of 2023 dt.14-07-2025
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64821 of 2023 dt.14-07-2025
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."
8. In view of aforesaid legal and factual
submissions as petitioners appear brother-in-law and
sister-in-law living separately, having no connection with
daily and domestic affairs of O.P. No.2, where their
implication appears only being relative of husband of O.P.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64821 of 2023 dt.14-07-2025
No. 2, facing general and omnibus allegation qua alleged
cruelty, accordingly by taking guiding note of Abhishek
case (supra), impugned order of taking cognizance
dated 24.05.2023 with all its consequential proceedings,
qua, both above named petitioners arising thereof as
passed in connection with Complaint Case No. 9303 (C)
of 2022 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Patna Sadar, Patna is hereby quashed and set
aside.
9. Hence, this application stands allowed.
10. Office is directed to sent a copy of this
judgment to the learned Trial Court, forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
S.Tripathi/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 15.07.2025
Transmission Date 15.07.2025
