Patna High Court
Alok BhushanversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
In the absence of specific allegations linking the petitioner to the alleged offences, the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance was an abuse of process and must be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, elder brother‑in‑law of the complainant, filed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash the Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate’s order of cognizance dated 08‑09‑2017 in a case involving alleged dowry harassment, assault and theft under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A and 379 IPC. The petitioner argued that he had no involvement in the matrimonial dispute, lived abroad and later in Bangalore, and that the FIR contained only vague, omnibus allegations against him. The State contended that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences but conceded the petitioner’s familial relationship. The High Court examined the material, noting that the allegations against the petitioner were general, lacked any specific overt act, and that proceeding against a distant relative in a matrimonial dispute would amount to abuse of process. Relying on several Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the magistrate’s order could not be sustained and was liable to be set aside. Consequently, the order of cognizance was quashed and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance against the petitioner can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose a prima facie offence against the petitioner.
- Whether proceeding against a relative in a matrimonial dispute amounts to abuse of the process of law.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 379, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- Section 482 CrPC
- quash of cognizance
- matrimonial dispute
- dowry harassment
- abuse of process
- Section 498A IPC
- high court inherent jurisdiction
- criminal proceedings
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10952 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-52 Year-2017 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Alok Bhushan, Son of Shashi Bhushan Malik, Resident of Village- Mahinam,
P.S.- Bahera, District- Darbhanga, Present residing of B- 801, OAK
Salarpuria Greenge Hoser Road Next to Oxford College, Bammanahalli
Bangalore South, Bommannahalli, P.S.- Bangalore South, District- Bengaluru
Karnataka- 560068.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Khushboo Kumari, D/o Nityanand Mallik, Resident of HIG-109, Housing
Board, P.S. Lehriasarai, District Darbhanga.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Shama Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Vijayansh Pratap Singh, Advocate
Mr. Surya Prakash, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 29-06-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as learned APP for the State.
2. The present application has been filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing the order dated
08.09.2017 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Darbhanga, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Magistrate’)
in connection with TR-3543 of 2017 arising out of Mahila P.S
Case No.52 of 2017, wherein the learned Magistrate took
cognizance fo the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504,
506, 498A and 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10952 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
2/15
Code, 1860 against the present petitioner, who is elder brother-
in-law (Jeth) of O.P No.2 and other accused persons.
3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the marriage
between the informant (O.P. No.2) and the younger brother of
the petitioner, Atul (co-accused) was solemnized on 11.12.2005
in accordance with Hindu rites and customs and at the time of
marriage shet got gift valued at Rs.15 lakhs by her parents and
relatives. It has been alleged that despite sufficient gifts having
been given at the time of marriage, the accused persons were not
satisfied and the O.P No.2 was subjected to taunt, causing mental
cruelty to her. Two children were born in 2008 and 2009 out of
their wedlock. It is further alleged that O.P. No.2 was
misbehaved by her husband and his family members at Greater
Noida on transfer of the husband of informant (O.P. No.2) to
Barauni. It is further alleged that on 11/12.05.2017 at night the
accused persons closed the informant in a room and assaulted
her when she opposed bringing of a girl and bottle of wine by
her husband (Atul). The O.P. No.2 has also alleged that on
12.05.2017 her ornaments and belongings were taken away, and
she was driven out from the matrimonial home. Subsequently, it
is alleged that the husband of O.P. No.2 came to her parental
house and assaulted her and attempted to take away the children.
On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, Darbhanga Mahila P.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10952 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
3/15
Case No.52 of 2017 was instituted under Sections 323, 504, 506,
498A and 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
and upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons.
4. On the basis of the said allegations, the learned
Magistrate, vide impugned order dated 08.09.2017 took
cognizance for the offences under Section 323, 504, 506, 498A
and 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against
the accused persons named in the charge-sheet. Petitioner, being
aggrieved by the said order of cognizance against him, has
preferred this application praying to quash the impugned order
dated 08.09.2017 passed against him by the learned Magistrate.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the
petitioner in a mechanical, arbitrary and routine manner without
proper application of judicial mind. It is submitted that the
petitioner is married elder brother of the husband of O.P. No.2
(informant) and has falsely been implicated in the present case.
Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had no
concern with the matrimonial life and domestic affairs of the
O.P. No.2 and her husband. It is next submitted that the
petitioner had completed his studies from Oxford University in
the United Kingdom and thereafter completing his studies he
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10952 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
4/15
moved to Patna, where he was residing separately with his
family. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had moved
to the United Kingdom in the year 2011 in connection with his
work and remained there till 2016, and thereafter on his return to
India the petitioner joined as General Manager in RMC
Readymix (India) at Bangalore, and thus he never resided with
O.P No.2 and her husband.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are general and
omnibus in nature and no specific overt act has been attributed to
the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has been
implicated in the present case only on account of his relationship
with the husband of O.P. No.2 to exert pressure on him. Learned
counsel submitted that continuation of criminal proceedings on
the basis of general and omnibus allegations amounts to abuse of
the process of Law. It is submitted that the law is well settled
that the High Court in exercise of inherent power conferred
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. must delve into the material on
record to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether
any offence is made out even if allegations are accepted in toto.
In support of her submissions, learned counsel has relied upon
the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar
Sharma v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2005) 6 SCC
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10952 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
5/15
281; Rajesh Sharma & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in
(2018) 10 SCC 472; Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand
& Anr., reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667; Geeta Mehrotra & Anr.
v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741; K.
Subba Rao & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors., reported in
(2018) 14 SCC 452; Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal
Kapoor, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 330; and State of Haryana &
Ors. v. Bhajan Lal &Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
Learned counsel lastly submitted that there is no specific
allegation against the petitioner and continuation of criminal
proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to
abuse of the process of law and the same is appropriate to be
quashed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted
that marriage of brother of the petitioner was solemnized with
O.P. No.2 in the year 2005 and they have been blessed with two
children and they were residing separately from the petitioner
and the F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2017 having no allegation
of dowry demand and petitioner having no concern with the
matrimonial affairs of the O.P. No.2 (informant) and her
husband.
8. Learned APP for the State submitted that the
allegations made in the F.I.R. disclose prima facie commission
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10952 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
6/15
of cognizable offences and the learned Magistrate has rightly
taken cognizance. However, he has conceded that petitioner is
in-law of O.P. No.2 and appropriate order may be passed in the
interest of justice.
9. Despite valid service of notice upon O.P. No.2, as
reflected from the service report on record, none has appeared on
her behalf to contest the present application. Hence, this Court
proceeds to consider the matter in her absence.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned APP for the State and upon perusal of the materials
available on record, this Court finds the uncontroverted fact that
the petitioner is the elder brother of the husband of O.P. No.2
(informant) and she has alleged harassment and cruelty in
connection with demand of dowry and ultimately driven out
from matrimonial home.
11. It is well settled that while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court is
required to examine whether the uncontroverted allegations
made in the complaint and the materials brought on record
disclose the commission of any offence. If the allegations are so
absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can
ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding, or where the proceeding is manifestly attended with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10952 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
7/15
mala fide and has been instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance, the same is liable to be quashed to secure
the ends of justice.
12. At this stage, it is apposite to mention that this
Court owes a duty to subject the allegations made in the
complaint or F.I.R. to a careful and thorough scrutiny so as to
ascertain, prima facie, whether there exists any grain of truth in
the allegations or whether the same have been made merely with
the sole object of implicating certain individuals in a criminal
case, particularly when the prosecution arises out of a
matrimonial dispute.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again
held that in cases arising out of matrimonial discord, the Courts
are required to exercise greater caution and carefully scrutinize
the allegations, particularly when criminal proceedings are
sought to be initiated against the relatives of the husband, so as
to prevent misuse of the criminal process. The Hon’ble Apex
Court in Preeti Gupta (Supra)has observed as under:
“32. It is a matter of common experience that
most of these complaints under Section 498-
A IPC 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10952 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
8/15
harassment is also a matter of serious
concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have
enormous social responsibility and
obligation to ensure that the social fibre of
family life is not ruined or demolished. They
must ensure that exaggerated versions of
small incidents should not be reflected in the
criminal complaints. Majority of the
complaints are filed either on their advice or
with their concurrence. The learned
members of the Bar who belong to a noble
profession must maintain its noble traditions
and should treat every complaint under
Section 498-A as a basic human problem and
must make serious endeavour to help the
parties in arriving at an amicable resolution
of that human problem. They must discharge
their duties to the best of their abilities to
ensure that social fibre, peace and
tranquillity of the society remains intact. The
members of the Bar should also ensure that
one complaint should not lead to multiple
cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the
complaint the implications and consequences
are not properly visualised by the
complainant that such complaint can lead to
insurmountable harassment, agony and pain
to the complainant, accused and his close
relations.
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find
out the truth and punish the guilty and
protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a
Herculean task in majority of these
complaints. The tendency of implicating the
husband and all his immediate relations is
also not uncommon. At times, even after the
conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult
to ascertain the real truth. 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. The
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10952 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
9/15
allegations of harassment of husband's
close relations 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.”
(emphasis supplied)
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra
(supra) has observed as under:
“20. Coming to the facts of this case, when
the contents of the FIR are perused, it is
apparent that there are no allegations
against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji
Mehrotra except casual reference of their
names which have been included in the FIR
but mere casual reference of the names of the
family members in a matrimonial dispute
without allegation of active involvement in
the matter would not justify taking
cognizance against them overlooking the fact
borne out of experience that there is a
tendency to involve the entire family
members of the household in the domestic
quarrel taking place in a matrimonial
dispute specially if it happens soon after the
wedding.
21. It would be relevant at this stage to take
note of an apt observation of this Court
recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad
[(2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733]
wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this
Court had held that the High Court should
have quashed the complaint arising out of a
matrimonial dispute wherein all family
members had been roped into the
matrimonial litigation which was quashed
and set aside. Their Lordships observed
therein with which we entirely agree that:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10952 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
10/15
(SCC p. 698, para 12)
“12. There has been an outburst of
matrimonial disputes in recent times.
Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main
purpose of which is to enable the young
couple to settle down in life and live
peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes
suddenly erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in commission of
heinous crimes in which elders of the family
are also involved with the result that those
who could have counselled and brought
about rapprochement are rendered helpless
on their being arrayed as accused in the
criminal case. There are many other reasons
which need not be mentioned here for not
encouraging matrimonial litigation so that
the parties may ponder over their defaults
and terminate their disputes amicably by
mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in
a court of law where it takes years and years
to conclude and in that process the parties
lose their ‘young’ days in chasing their
‘cases’ in different courts.”
The view taken by the Judges in that matter
was that the courts would not encourage
such disputes.”
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Subba Rao
(supra) has observed as under:
“6. Criminal proceedings are not normally
interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage
unless there is an abuse of the process of a
court. This Court, at the same time, does not
hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of
justice. See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
[State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] . The
courts should be careful in proceeding
against the distant relatives in crimes
pertaining to matrimonial disputes and
dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10952 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
11/15
should not be roped in on the basis of
omnibus allegations unless specific instances
of their involvement in the crime are made
out. See Kans Raj v. State of Punjab [Kans
Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207 :
2000 SCC (Cri) 935] and Kailash Chandra
Agrawal v. State of U.P. [Kailash Chandra
Agrawal v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC
551 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 536]”
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported
in (2022) 6 SCC 599, has observed as under:
“17. The abovementioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this Court has at numerous
instances expressed concern over the misuse
of Section 498-A I.P.C 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.”
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v.
State of Haryana and Anr., reported in (2025) 3 SCC 756, has
reiterated the settled legal position and observed as under:
“35. In one of the recent pronouncements of
this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10952 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
12/15
[Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., (2023) 15
SCC 488], authored by one of us (J.B.
Pardiwala, J.), the legal principle applicable
apropos Section 482CrPC was examined.
Therein, it was observed that when an
accused comes before the High Court,
invoking either the inherent power under
Section 482CrPC 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.”
(emphasis supplied)
18. It is a settled position of law that while
considering a prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings at the
threshold, the Court is required to examine whether the
allegations made in the complaint, together with the materials
placed on record in support thereof, disclose the commission of a
prima facie offence against the accused warranting continuation
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10952 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
13/15
of the criminal prosecution. At this stage, the Court is not
required to enter into a detailed evaluation or meticulous
appreciation of the evidence, but only to determine whether the
basic ingredients constituting the alleged offence are prima facie
made out from the averments contained in the complaint. This
principle has been consistently affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in several decisions, including Bhajan Lal (Supra) and
Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported
in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947.
19. It is a well-settled principle of law that in cases
arising out of matrimonial discord, particularly those instituted
under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the Courts are
required to adopt a cautious approach while examining the
allegations against the relatives of the husband. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has consistently observed that such allegations
must be carefully scrutinized to determine whether they disclose
the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences or whether the
relatives of the husband have been arrayed as accused solely on
account of their familial relationship with the principal accused.
In circumstances where the allegations are general in nature and
do not contain specific assertions indicating the active
participation or involvement of such relatives in the alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10952 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
14/15
offence, permitting the criminal proceedings to continue against
them may result in an abuse of the process of law.
20. In the present case, upon careful perusal of the
F.I.R. and the materials available on record, specially the case
diary, it appears that the allegations made against the petitioner
herein are general and omnibus in nature without any specific
overt act attributed to him. It further appears that the petitioner
was residing separately and had no direct concern with the
matrimonial life of the O.P. No.2 and her husband. It is well
settled that in matrimonial disputes the relatives of the husband
are often implicated on the basis of vague and sweeping
allegations. In absence of specific and distinct allegations
constituting the ingredients of the alleged offences, continuation
of the criminal proceeding against such relatives would amount
to abuse of the process of the Court.
21. In the considered opinion of this Court,
allowing the criminal proceeding to continue against the present
petitioner in the absence of specific allegations would amount to
abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, the impugned
order taking cognizance against the petitioner cannot be
sustained in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed.
22. Accordingly, the impugned order of cognizance
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10952 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
15/15
dated 08.09.2017 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Darbhanga in connection with TR-3543 of 2017
arising out of Mahila P.S Case No.52 of 2017 qua the petitioner
is hereby set aside and the entire criminal proceeding arising
therefrom so far it related to the present petitioner is quashed.
23. The present criminal miscellaneous application
is, accordingly, allowed.
24. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated
to the concerned Court forthwith.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 16.06.2026
Uploading Date
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.