Manju Devi vs The State Of Bihar
2026 Latest Caselaw 77 Patna

Patna High Court

Manju Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 19 January, 2026

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36935 of 2025
      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1535 Year-2024 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE
                                       District- Begusarai
     ======================================================

1. Manju Devi W/o Sri Shiv Shankar Singh R/o vill - Bihat Tola Khemkaranpur, ward no. 16, P.s.- F.C.I., Distt.- Begusarai

2. Shivam Kumar S/o Sri Shiv Shankar Singh R/o vill - Bihat Tola Khemkaranpur, ward no. 16, P.s.- F.C.I., Distt.- Begusarai

3. Rupam Devi D/o Sri shiv Shankar Singh R/o vill - Bihat Tola Khemkaranpur, ward no. 16, P.s.- F.C.I., Distt.- Begusarai

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Amrita Devi W/o Sri Sumit Kumar R/o vill - Bihat Tola Khemkaranpur, ward no. 16, P.S.- F.C.I., Distt.- Begusarai

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA C.A.V. JUDGMENT Date : 19-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned counsel for the State.

2. The present application has been filed for

quashing the order dated 03.01.2025 passed by learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Begusarai in Complaint Case No.1535 of

2024 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Begusarai took cognizance and issued process for

facing trial against the petitioners and others for the offences

under sections 85, 115(2), 118(1), 191(2) of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36935 of 2025 dt.19-01-2026

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the

complainant solemnized marriage with the co-accused, Sumit

Kumar, in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals at the Kali

Temple, Begusarai. It is alleged that despite being fully aware

that the complainant was a divorced woman belonging to a

different caste and having a minor son from her previous

marriage, the co-accused Sumit Kumar voluntarily entered into

the said matrimonial alliance. After the marriage, the

complainant was kept in a rented accommodation. Subsequently,

it is alleged that the co-accused Sumit Kumar, along with the

other accused persons, subjected the complainant to cruelty,

including caste-based abuse and physical assault. It is further

alleged that petitioner no. 2 made an attempt to press the

complainant's neck with an intention to cause her harm.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the present criminal proceeding is a gross abuse of the

process of law and are liable to be quashed at the threshold. The

complaint is founded on vague, omnibus and generalized

allegations without attributing any specific overt act of cruelty

to the petitioners. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta and

Another v. State of Jharkhand and Another, reported at (2010) Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36935 of 2025 dt.19-01-2026

7 SCC 667, wherein the Court has cautioned against the

tendency to implicate all family members of the husband in

matrimonial disputes on the basis of sweeping and exaggerated

allegations.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further

relies upon Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and Another,

reported at (2025) 3 SCC, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has reiterated that criminal prosecution in matrimonial disputes

cannot be sustained in the absence of specific allegations and

material particulars showing active involvement of the accused

persons. It has been held that continuation of such proceedings

amounts to misuse of criminal law.

6. Placing further reliance upon Rajesh Sharma

and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, reported at

(2018) 10 SCC 472, the learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognized the

rampant misuse of Section 498A IPC and has emphasized the

need for judicial scrutiny before subjecting the relatives of the

husband to criminal prosecution, particularly when allegations

are bald and unsubstantiated.

7. The learned counsel further submits that the very

foundation of the prosecution is unsustainable, as the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36935 of 2025 dt.19-01-2026

complainant was already married to another person and no

decree of divorce has been placed on record. Consequently, the

alleged marriage with co-accused Sumit Kumar is void-ab-

initio. In this context, reliance is placed upon Dolly Rani v.

Manish Kumar Chanchal, reported at (2025) 2 SCC 587,

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down the

essential ingredients of a valid marriage and held that in the

absence of a legally valid subsisting marriage, prosecution for

matrimonial offences is not maintainable.

8. It is thus submitted that in the absence of a valid

marriage, specific allegations of cruelty, or any material

indicating harassment by the petitioners, the essential

ingredients of Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

are not made out. Continuation of the criminal proceedings

against the petitioners would therefore result in grave

miscarriage of justice and deserves to be quashed in exercise of

the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

9. Learned counsel for the state have supported the

impugned order taking cognizance that the Court below after

considering all the materials against the petitioners took

cognizance under Sections 85, 115(2), 118(1), 191(2) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36935 of 2025 dt.19-01-2026

10. At the outset, this Court has carefully

considered the rival submissions and perused the materials

placed on record. The jurisdiction invoked under Section 528 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is undoubtedly

extraordinary in nature; however, it is equally well settled that

such jurisdiction must be exercised to prevent abuse of the

process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

11. On a plain reading of the complaint and the

statements recorded during enquiry, this Court finds that the

allegations levelled against the petitioners, who are relatives of

the husband, are largely vague, omnibus, and generalized in

nature. Except for a broad narrative alleging harassment, the

complaint does not attribute any specific role, overt act, or

distinct instance of cruelty to any of the petitioners. The absence

of material particulars assumes significance, particularly in

matrimonial disputes where the tendency to implicate the entire

family has been judicially noticed and deprecated.

12. In Preeti Gupta and Another v. State of

Jharkhand and Another, (2010) 7 SCC 667, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, while dealing with a similar fact situation,

expressed serious concern over the growing misuse of

matrimonial provisions by roping in distant and uninvolved Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36935 of 2025 dt.19-01-2026

relatives on the basis of exaggerated and sweeping allegations.

The Apex Court held that criminal law should not be permitted

to be used as a weapon of harassment and that courts must be

cautious and circumspect while dealing with such complaints.

Applying the ratio of the said judgment, this Court finds that the

allegations in the present case lack the requisite specificity to

justify continuation of criminal proceedings against the

petitioners.

13. A further crucial and undisputed aspect of the

case is the categorical admission of the complainant that she had

been residing separately from the petitioners for nearly three

years and had never shared a household with them. This

admission strikes at the very root of the allegation of cruelty.

Cruelty, in the context of matrimonial offences, presupposes a

degree of proximity, interaction, or cohabitation that enables

harassment or ill-treatment. In the absence of any shared

residence or meaningful interaction, the allegation of cruelty by

the in-laws becomes inherently improbable. The admitted

factual position, therefore, does not disclose any circumstance

giving rise to cruelty attributable to the petitioners.

14. The only allegation with some degree of

specificity is against petitioner no. 2, namely, Shivam Kumar, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36935 of 2025 dt.19-01-2026

alleging an attempt to press the neck of the complainant.

However, this allegation is conspicuously unsupported by any

medical evidence or contemporaneous record. No injury report,

hospital document, or independent corroboration has been

produced. More importantly, this allegation does not find

mention in the initial complaint and has surfaced for the first

time during the enquiry through a witness statement. Such an

improvement, in the absence of supporting material, renders the

allegation doubtful and insufficient to sustain criminal

prosecution.

15. This Court also finds substantial merit in the

submission that the very foundation of the prosecution is legally

unsustainable. It is an admitted position that the complainant

was previously married and has a minor child from the said

marriage. No decree of divorce dissolving the earlier marriage

has been placed on record. In the absence of dissolution of the

subsisting marriage, the alleged subsequent marriage with

accused Sumit Kumar is void-ab-initio in the eyes of law.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolly Rani v.

Manish Kumar Chanchal, (2025) 2 SCC 587, has categorically

held that the existence of a legally valid and subsisting marriage

is a sine qua non for invoking matrimonial offences. The Court Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36935 of 2025 dt.19-01-2026

clarified that where the marriage itself is void or legally non-

existent, the very basis for prosecution under matrimonial

provisions collapses. In the present case, therefore, the absence

of a valid marriage strikes at the root of the prosecution.

17. Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023 requires the coexistence of two essential ingredients: first,

a legally valid marital relationship; and second, cruelty arising

out of such relationship. This Court finds that neither of these

ingredients is satisfied in the present case.

18. In Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and

Another, (2025) 3 SCC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated

that criminal prosecution in matrimonial disputes cannot be

permitted to continue where allegations are general,

unsupported by material evidence, and disclose no active

involvement of the accused. The Court emphasized that criminal

law should not be used as a tool of pressure or harassment.

19. Similarly, in Rajesh Sharma and Others v.

State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2018) 10 SCC 472, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court acknowledged the rampant misuse of

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and underscored the

duty of courts to prevent unnecessary prosecution of relatives of

the husband, particularly when allegations are bald and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36935 of 2025 dt.19-01-2026

unsubstantiated.

20. Further, the case squarely falls within the

parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of

Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1)

SCC 335. The present matter clearly attracts the illustrative

categories carved out therein, particularly where the allegations,

even if taken at face value, do not disclose the essential

ingredients of the alleged offence and are manifestly attended

with mala fide and abuse of the process of law. Continuation of

the prosecution, in such circumstances, would serve no

legitimate purpose.

21. This Court is conscious of the settled principle

that criminal proceedings ought not to be quashed at the

threshold in a routine manner. However, where the allegations

do not disclose the commission of any offence, the prosecution

is founded on legally untenable grounds, and continuation of

proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law,

interference by this Court becomes not only permissible but

imperative.

22. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court

is of the considered opinion that the impugned order of

cognizance suffers from non-application of mind and that Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36935 of 2025 dt.19-01-2026

continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners

would result in grave miscarriage of justice.

23. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/-

AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                08.01.2026
Uploading Date          19.01.2026
Transmission Date       19.01.2026