Patna High Court
AtulversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The High Court held that the FIR contains only vague, omnibus allegations that do not prima facie establish the ingredients of the offences, particularly Section 498A, and therefore the criminal proceeding is an abuse of process and must be quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, Atul, filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash the order of cognizance dated 08‑09‑2017 passed by the Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate in a case alleging offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A and 379 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute. The FIR alleged mental cruelty, dowry‑related harassment and assault but the petitioners argued that the allegations were vague, lacked specific details, were unsupported by medical or corroborative evidence, and that the complainant had later retracted her statements. The State contended that the FIR disclosed a prima facie case. The High Court examined the material, held that the allegations were general and omnibus, did not disclose the essential ingredient of "cruelty" under Section 498A, and that the proceeding was an abuse of process. Consequently, the Court set aside the magistrate’s order and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR and charge‑sheet disclose a prima facie case of offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A and 379 IPC.
- Whether the allegations constitute specific instances of cruelty and dowry demand as required under Section 498A IPC.
- Whether the criminal proceeding is an abuse of process and should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 379, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- Section 498A
- dowry harassment
- quashing criminal proceedings
- Section 482 CrPC
- abuse of process
- marital dispute
- omnibus allegations
- cruelty
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11320 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-52 Year-2017 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Atul, Son of Late Shashi Bhushan Lal Karn, Resident of Village-Mahinam,
P.S.-Bahera, District-Darbhanga Present residing at B.R.T.S. Quarter no. B/C-
1/61 Barauni, P.S.-Barauni Town, District-begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Khushboo Kumari, D/o Nityanand Mallik, R/o-HIG-109, Housing Board,
Laheriyasarai, 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. Murlidhar, 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 for the
offences punishable under Section 323, 504, 506, 498A and 379
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11320 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
2/17
the petitioner herein, who is the husband of O.P. No.2 and two
other accused persons (in-laws of O.P. No.2).
3. The facts of the case, in brief, as per the F.I.R., is
that the marriage between the petitioner and the informant (O.P.
No.2) was solemnized on 11.12.2005 as per Hindu rites and
customs, and at the time of marriage she got gift valued at Rs.15
lakhs by her parents and relatives. It is alleged that petitioner and
his family members were not satisfied with the aforesaid gift and
used to taunt in this regard causing mental cruelty to her. Two
children (a daughter in 2008 and a son in October 2009) were
born out of their wedlock. The petitioner who is an Engineer,
working in Indian Oil Corporation, purchased a flat in Greater
Noida where they started to live but behavior of the accused
persons did not change and they continued to misbehave with the
informant (O.P. No.2). On transfer of the petitioner to Barauni,
they shifted in a quarter provided by the Refinery at Begusarai,
where also the petitioner used to assault and misbehave with her.
It is further alleged that on 11/12.05.2017 in the night the
petitioner came with a girl and bottle of wine which was opposed
by the informant (O.P. No.2), whereafter the accused persons
closed the informant (O.P. no.2) in a room and assaulted her.
Subsequently, the police came there and warned the petitioner.
The O.P. No.2 has also alleged that on 12.05.2017 her ornaments
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11320 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
3/17
and belongings were taken away, and she was driven out from
the house and due to this, she started living with her father in his
house at Darbhanga. It is further alleged that the petitioner came
to her parental house and also assaulted her and attempted to take
away the children. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations,
Darbhanga Mahila P.S. 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 punishable under Sections 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 essential ingredients of Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code, namely “cruelty” as defined under the Explanation thereto,
are wholly absent in the present case. It is submitted that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11320 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
4/17
F.I.R. does not disclose any specific allegation of dowry demand,
either direct or indirect, against the petitioner, and mere
expression of dissatisfaction with gifts cannot be equated with a
demand for dowry. Learned counsel submitted that the
allegations are vague, omnibus and devoid of particulars such as
date, time, place or manner of occurrence, and even the
allegations of physical assault are not supported by any medical
or corroborative evidence. It is submitted that no prima facie
case is made out against the petitioner even under Section 498A
of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that the F.I.R. suffers from inherent improbabilities
and is attended with mala fide. It is submitted that there is an
unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., which casts serious
doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. It is also submitted
that prior to the institution of the present case, the petitioner had
already filed information petitions before the competent Court
apprehending false implication, which clearly indicates that the
present case is a counterblast. Learned counsel submitted that
certain allegations, including those relating to theft and assault,
were not supported by the independent witnesses and they stated
that the O.P. No.2 herself left the house with her valuable
belongings and went with her father in absence of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11320 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
5/17
It is submitted that the O.P. No.2 (informant) herself gave a
written statement to Begusarai Police that she was not locked in
the room, as alleged, and a simple quarrel took place between
them and she was alright, thereby rendering the entire
prosecution case doubtful.
7. It is further submitted that in the present case,
there is (a) no ingredient of cruelty under Section 498A Indian
Penal Code; (b) no allegation of dowry demand; (c) unexplained
delay of 12 years; (d) voluntary abandonment of home and
children by the O.P. No.2 (informant); and (e) written retraction
of allegation by the O.P. No.2 (informant) are the factors which
require the quashing of criminal proceeding against the
petitioner.
8. Placing reliance upon the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Soni v. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi), reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1301; Achin
Gupta v. State of Haryana and Anr., reported in (2025) 3 SCC
756; and Rajesh Chaddha v. State of U.P., reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1094, learned counsel submitted that continuation of
criminal proceedings on the basis of general and omnibus
allegations amounts to abuse of the process of law. The law is
well settled that the Hon’ble High Court in exercise of powers
conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. must delve into the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11320 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
6/17
material on record to assess what the complainant has alleged
and whether any offence is made out even if allegations are
accepted in toto. It is, thus, submitted that in view of the settled
legal position and the facts of the present case, the impugned
order of cognizance as well as the entire criminal proceeding
against the petitioner and his family members are fit to be
quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
9. Learned APP for the State submitted that the
allegations made in the F.I.R. disclose prima facie commission of
cognizable offences and the learned Magistrate has rightly taken
cognizance.
10. 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.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned APP for the State, and upon perusal of the materials
available on record, this Court proceeds to examine whether the
continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner
would be in the interest of justice or would amount to abuse of
the process of the Court.
12. It is well settled that while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11320 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
7/17
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 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.
13. At this stage, it is apposite to reproduce some
relevant paragraphs of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in
(2023) 16 SCC 666 with respect to the contours of the power to
quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The
Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:
“16. 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 v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599],
this Court had occasion to deal with a
similar situation where the High Court had
refused [Mohd. Ikram v. State of Bihar, 2019
SCC OnLine Pat 1985] to quash an FIR
registered for various offences, including
Section 498-AIPC. Noting that the foremost
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11320 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
8/17
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
498-AIPC 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.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
19. Of more recent origin is the decision of
this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P.
[(2023) 15 SCC 488] on the legal principles
applicable apropos Section 482 CrPC.
Therein, it was observed that when an
accused comes before the High Court,
invoking either the inherent power under
Section 482 CrPC 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11320 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
9/17
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.”
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta
(supra) has observed as under:
“35. In one of the recent pronouncements of
this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P.
[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 482 CrPC was examined.
Therein, it was observed that when an
accused comes before the High Court,
invoking either the inherent power under
Section 482 CrPC 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)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11320 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
10/17
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam
Soni (supra) has observed as under:
“11. As regards the Appellant, the
purportedly specific allegations levelled
against him are also obscure in nature. Even
if the allegations and the case of the
prosecution is taken at its face value, apart
from the bald allegations without any
specifics of time, date or place, there is no
incriminating material found by the
prosecution or rather produced by the
complainant to substantiate the ingredients of
“cruelty” under section 498A IPC, as
recently observed in the case of
Jaydedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of
Gujarat and Rajesh Chaddha v. State of
Uttar Pradesh. The Complainant has
admittedly failed to produce any medical
records or injury reports, x-ray reports, or
any witnesses to substantiate her
allegations………….”
16. At this juncture, it would be apposite to examine
the nature of allegations levelled against the husband. While the
husband ordinarily occupies a central position in a matrimonial
dispute, criminal liability cannot be presumed merely on account
of the marital relationship. The allegations must disclose specific
acts or omissions attributable to him which satisfy the essential
ingredients of the offences alleged. The distinction between a
bald accusation and a legally sustainable allegation assumes
significance while assessing whether the criminal prosecution
deserves to continue. In this regard, the observations of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Belide Swagath Kumar v. State of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11320 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
11/17
Telangana and Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2890 are
instructive:
“24. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the
allegations made by the complainant-
respondent No. 2 are vague and omnibus.
Other than claiming that the husband and his
family along with the accused-appellant
herein mentally harassed her with a demand
of dowry, the complainant-respondent No. 2
has not provided any specific details or
described any particular instance of
harassment. Although she has alleged that an
amount totalling to Rupees One Crore was
demanded by the accused-appellant and his
family members, the complainant-respondent
No. 2 has failed to put forth any evidence or
material on record to elaborate or
substantiate the same. Furthermore, the
complainant-respondent No. 2 has failed to
impress the court as to how the said alleged
harassment has caused her any injury, mental
or physical. There has been no remote or
proximate act or omission attributed to the
accused-appellant that implicates him or
assigns him any specific role in the said FIR
for the offence of 498A of the IPC. Merely
stating that the accused-appellant has
mentally harassed the complainant-
respondent No. 2 with respect to a demand of
dowry does not fulfil the ingredients of
Section 498A of the IPC especially in the face
of absence of any cogent material or
evidence on record to substantiate the said
allegations. The term “cruelty” cannot be
established without specific instances. The
tendency of invoking these sections, without
mentioning any specific details, weakens the
case of prosecution and casts serious
aspersions on the viability of the version of
the complainant. Therefore, this Court cannot
ignore the missing specifics in an FIR which
is the premise of invoking criminal machinery
of the State. In such cases involving
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11320 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
12/17
allegations of cruelty and harassment, there
would normally be a series of offending acts,
which would be required to be spelt out by
the complainant against perpetrators in
specific terms to involve such perpetrators
into the criminal proceedings sought to be
initiated against them and therefore mere
general allegations of harassment without
pointing out the specifics against such
persons would not be sufficient to continue
criminal proceedings.”
17. In the present case, upon careful scrutiny of the
F.I.R. and the materials brought on record, this Court finds that
the allegations levelled against the petitioner are largely general
and omnibus in nature. The F.I.R. narrates a long span of
matrimonial life from the year 2005 till 2017, however, it fails to
attribute any specific overt act to the petitioner. The allegation
regarding dissatisfaction with gifts at the time of marriage does
not disclose any specific demand of dowry, which is a sine qua
non for constituting an offence under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code. Moreover, the other allegations relating to cruelty
and harassment are stated in a vague and sweeping manner
without any supporting material or contemporaneous complaint.
There is force in the argument of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the allegation of few taunts here and there is a part
of everyday life which for happiness of the family are usually
ignored. Specific details in respect of those taunts have not been
disclosed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11320 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
13/17
18. It further transpires that though allegations of
physical assault and misappropriation of ornaments have been
made, there is no medical evidence, injury report or any
independent corroboration to substantiate such claims. The
allegation of theft under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code
also appears to be bald and unsupported by any specific
averment. The F.I.R. is conspicuously silent as to any concrete
instance of wilful conduct on the part of the petitioner which
could be said to be of such gravity so as to fall within the ambit
of “cruelty” as defined under law.
19. Moreover, it can explicitly be inferred from
perusal of the materials available on record, specially, the case
diary, that on 11.06.2017, there was verbal altercation between
the petitioner and the O.P. No.2, following which police arrived
at their residence within the premises of Barauni Refinery
Housing Colony, and they returned after some settlement
between both the parties. Later, on 12.05.2017, as available from
the records, O.P. No.2 along with both the children left the said
house with her father and brother-in-law (jija). Subsequently, the
F.I.R. bearing, Darbhanga Mahila P.S. Case No.52 of 2017 was
registered on 18.06.2017.
20. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that
no prior complaint to any authority with respect to any cruelty
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11320 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
14/17
between 2005 to 2017 during their conjugal life has been brought
on record. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid circumstances
indicates that the allegations are not only lacking in material
particulars but also fail to prima facie constitute the offences
alleged against the petitioner, and as such, allowing the criminal
proceeding to continue would not be in the interest of justice.
21. It is further pertinent to note that even if the
allegations contained in the F.I.R. are accepted in their entirety,
they essentially disclose a strained matrimonial relationship and
allegations of general discord between the spouses. The F.I.R.
does not disclose any specific instance of unlawful demand for
dowry made by the petitioner nor does it narrate any proximate
act of such nature which could reasonably be construed as
“cruelty” within the meaning of Explanation (a) or (b) to Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code. The distinction between ordinary
wear and tear of matrimonial life and conduct amounting to
criminal cruelty must be scrupulously maintained. It is to be
noted that criminal law cannot be permitted to be invoked on the
basis of vague grievances and generalized allegations bereft of
material particulars. In the considered view of this Court, the
allegations, taken at their face value, fail to satisfy the
foundational ingredients of the offences alleged and, therefore,
continuation of the prosecution would amount to permitting the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11320 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
15/17
criminal process to be used for purposes for which it was never
intended.
22. This Court has also examined the materials
collected during investigation as reflected from the case diary.
Significantly, the investigation has not unearthed any
independent material indicating a specific demand of dowry or
any particular act attributable to the petitioner constituting
cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code. The charge-sheet appears to have been submitted
substantially on the basis of the statements reiterating the
allegations made in the F.I.R. without any material improvement
on the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. Mere filing of
a charge-sheet cannot, by itself, justify continuation of a criminal
prosecution when the foundational ingredients of the offence
remain unsubstantiated.
23. Now, the law with respect to quashing of
criminal proceeding is now well settled that while considering a
prayer to quash the criminal complaint and the consequential
proceedings at the threshold, the Court is required to examine
whether the allegations made in the complaint along with
materials in support thereof make out a prima facie case to
proceed against the accused or not. The reference to the same has
been made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11320 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
16/17
including State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors.,
reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Pradeep Kumar
Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 1947.
24. The present case, in the considered opinion of
this Court, squarely falls within the parameters indicated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), particularly the
category where the allegations made in the F.I.R., even if taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie
constitute the offences alleged, and also the category where the
criminal proceeding appears to have been instituted with an
oblique motive arising out of a matrimonial discord. The
continuation of such prosecution would therefore amount to
abuse of the process of the Court and would result in miscarriage
of justice.
25. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
08.09.2017 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Darbhanga in connection with TR No. 3543 of 2017
arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No.52 of 2017, so far as it relates
to the present petitioner, is hereby set aside and the entire
criminal proceeding arising therefrom, qua the petitioner is
quashed.
26. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11320 of 2018 dt.29-06-2026
17/17
is, accordingly, allowed.
27. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to
the Court concerned forthwith for needful.
(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.