Patna High Court
Rani Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 18 June, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35467 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Patna
======================================================
1. Rani Devi, Wife of Pappu Kumar, House No. 19, Adrigali, In front of A.N.
College, P.S.- S.K. Puri, District- Patna, At present House No. 62, East
Boring Canal Road, P.S.- Budha Colony, District- Patna.
2. Pappu Kumar Son Of Late Sripati Prasad, House No. 19, Adrigali, In front
of A.N. College, P.S.- S.K. Puri, District- Patna, At present House No. 62,
East Boring Canal Road, P.S.- Budha Colony, District- Patna.
3. Deepak Kumar Son Of Late Sripati Prasad, House No. 19, Adrigali, In front
of A.N. College, P.S.- S.K. Puri, District- Patna, At present House No. 62,
East Boring Canal Road, P.S.- Budha Colony, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Switi Kumari Daughter Of Ajay Kumar , Wife Of Guddu Kumar Resident
Of Nawada Purvi Tola , P.S.- Phulwari , Dist- Patna
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prem Kumar, Advocate
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr.Shrawan Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Jha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-06-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.
Shrawan Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2
and also learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This application has been preferred under section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the 'Cr.P.C.')
for quashing the order dated 04.08.2021, as passed by
learned S.D.J.M., Patna in Mahila P.S. Case No. 01 of 2021
(G.R. No. 155 of 2021), whereby and whereunder learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35467 of 2024 dt.18-06-2025
2/8
Magistrate took cognizance for the offences punishable under
Sections 498(A)/504/506/34 of the I.P.C. and section ¾ of
the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners and other
accused persons.
3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is
that marriage of opposite party no. 2 was performed with one
Guddu Kumar on 22.02.2019, but she was tortured for non-
fulfillment of demand of dowry and motorcycle. O.P. No. 2
alleged that she was blessed with one female child. It is
alleged that after making pressure by her parental family, her
husband arranged a rental house where mother-in-law was
also residing for caring her new born baby. In the meantime,
family members of husband of the O.P. No. 2 started making
pressure to bring Rs. five lakhs from her parents and also
taken signature of the O.P. No. 2/informant on 8-10 blank
papers. The informant further alleged that her husband did
not keep her in in-laws house.
4. On the basis of aforesaid written information of
the informant/O.P. No. 2, the present F.I.R. being Mahila P.S.
Case No. 01 of 2021 has been registered for the offences
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35467 of 2024 dt.18-06-2025
3/8
punishable under sections 498(A)/504/506/34 of the I.P.C.
and section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners that petitioners are in-laws of opposite party
no. 2 and living separately with the husband of opposite party
no. 2 prior to this occurrence.
6. It is further pointed that the root cause for lodging
the present F.I.R. is filing of divorce case by the husband of
opposite party no. 2 in the year 2020 itself. It is also
submitted that all petitioners are facing general and omnibus
allegation qua alleged cruelty as committed upon opposite
party no. 2, and even the date of occurrence not appears
specified for alleged cruelty. It is further submitted that even
the local ward member has endorsed through Annexure P/4
that petitioners are living separately prior to the occurrence.
7. In view of aforesaid, implication of the petitioners
with the present case is only for the reason that they are
relatives/family members of the husband of opposite party
no. 2. While concluding argument, learned counsel relied
upon the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35467 of 2024 dt.18-06-2025
4/8
through Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported
in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083.
8. Mr. Shrawan Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for the opposite party no. 2, while opposing the petition,
submitted that the allegation qua raising demand of dowry for
purchasing motorcycle and also for cash of Rs. 5 Lakhs to
start business appears available against petitioner no. 2
namely, Pappu Kumar, who is elder brother-in-law of opposite
party no. 2. It is also submitted that petitioners along with
husband of opposite party no. 2 did not allow opposite party
no. 2 to enter into her matrimonial house on 19.09.2020, and
since then she is living with her parents.
9. It would be apposite to reproduce para-13, 14,
15, 16 and 17 of the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court
passed in the case of Abhishek case (supra), which are as
under:-
"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,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35467 of 2024 dt.18-06-2025
5/8
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35467 of 2024 dt.18-06-2025
6/8
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 State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp. (1)
SCC 335], 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 power should be
exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35467 of 2024 dt.18-06-2025
7/8
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 information
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
person 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 Act concerned (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
Act concerned, 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'."
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35467 of 2024 dt.18-06-2025
8/8
10. In view of aforesaid factual and legal submission
and by taking note of the fact as petitioners are in-laws of
opposite party no. 2, who are facing general and omnibus
allegation qua alleged cruelty as committed upon opposite
party no. 2, who appears prima facie living separately prior to
the occurrence, accordingly, by taking reference of Abhishek
case (supra), the impugned cognizance order dated
04.08.2021
as passed in Mahila P.S. Case No. 01 of 2021
(G.R. No. 155 of 2021) by learned S.D.J.M., Patna, is hereby
quashed/set aside qua above-named petitioners with all
consequential proceedings, if any.
11. Accordingly, this application stands allowed.
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court
concerned immediately.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 18.06.2025
Transmission Date 18.06.2025
