Patna High Court
AJAY KUMAR PANDEYversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
The order of cognizance is quashed as the FIR contains only general, omnibus allegations and no specific act is attributed to the petitioners, rendering the proceedings an abuse of process.
Summary
The petitioners, the father‑in‑law, mother‑in‑law and brother‑in‑law of the complainant, sought quashing of the order of cognizance dated 08‑05‑2019 that had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 498A, 354B/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution alleged dowry harassment and cruelty, but the FIR contained only vague, omnibus allegations without any specific act, date or incident attributed to the petitioners. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh and a line of precedents that condemn misuse of Section 498A in matrimonial disputes, the Court held that the FIR was insufficient to sustain the proceedings. Consequently, the order of cognizance was quashed as to all three petitioners. The petition was allowed, and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR and order of cognizance can be quashed on the ground that the allegations against the petitioners are vague, omnibus and lack specific factual particulars.
- Whether the petitioners can be held liable under Sections 498A, 354B/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the absence of specific acts attributed to them.
- Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 354B, 498A
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- Section 498A
- quash order
- inherent jurisdiction
- abuse of process
- matrimonial dispute
- omnibus allegations
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11727 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-130 Year-2018 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Bhojpur
======================================================
1. AJAY KUMAR PANDEY S/o Ram Avatar Pandey R/o village- Jamalpur,
P.S.- Koilwar, District- Bhojpur. At present 186, Krishna Nagar- 2, Nilgiri
Road, P.S.- Limbayat, Udhana, Surat, Gujarat
2. Chanchala Devi W/o Ajay Kumar Pandey R/o village- Jamalpur, P.S.-
Koilwar, District- Bhojpur. At present 186, Krishna Nagar- 2, Nilgiri Road,
P.S.- Limbayat, Udhana, Surat, Gujarat
3. Amit Kumar Pandey S/o Ajay Kumar Pandey R/o village- Jamalpur, P.S.-
Koilwar, District- Bhojpur. At present 186, Krishna Nagar- 2, Nilgiri Road,
P.S.- Limbayat, Udhana, Surat, Gujarat
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar
2. Suman Devi D/o Ramadhar, W/o Ankit Kumar Pandey R/o village-
Bariswan, P.S.- Shahpur, District- Bhojpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 23-06-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the Informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State.
2. Petitioners seek quashing of the order of cognizance
dated 08.05.2019 passed in connection with Ara Mahila, Bhojpur
P.S. Case No. 130 of 2018 by which the learned S.D.J.M., Ara has
taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 498(A), 354(B)/34
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of D.P.Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11727 of 2021 dt.23-06-2026
2/6
3. The prosecution case is that the marriage of Suman
Devi was solemnized with Ankit Kumar Pandey on 05.03.2017 at
Bhojpur. Her family allegedly provided dowry which is worth
about Rs. 3,50,000 including household appliances, jewellery, and
other gifts. Despite that the in-laws allegedly demanded a car
before and after marriage. It is alleged that after reaching her
matrimonial home, she was subjected to pressure, abuse, and
assault for dowry and later faced similar treatment at Surat. She
further accused her father-in-law for attempting inappropriate
conduct and alleged physical assault by family members. Her
parental family members tried to resolve the dispute but it failed.
Then she filed a complaint at Mahila Police Station and returned to
her parental home.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated
in the present case merely because they are related to the husband
of the informant. A bare perusal of the F.I.R. would reveal that the
allegations levelled against the petitioners are vague, omnibus and
general in nature, and no specific overt act, date or incident has
been attributed to them. The petitioners neither demanded any
dowry nor subjected the informant to any cruelty and have been
arrayed as accused only with an oblique motive to exert pressure
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11727 of 2021 dt.23-06-2026
3/6
upon the family members of the husband. It is further submitted
that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged are not made
out against the petitioners. Therefore, the continuation of the
criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an
abuse of the process of the Court and, accordingly, the impugned
F.I.R. and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are
liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this
Hon'ble Court.
5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State have vehemently
opposed quashing of the order of cognizance dated 08.05.2019.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhishek vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in [2023 SCC Online SC 1083], and in
a line of decisions preceding it, has quashed proceedings against
in-laws where the allegations in the FIR were general and omnibus
in character. In the present case, the FIR does not attribute any
specific act, date, or incident to either petitioner, the allegations
against them are collective and undifferentiated, bringing this case
squarely within the principle laid down in Abhishek. Moreover, the
dispute, which commenced in 2017, appears to be essentially
between the husband and wife, the petitioners had no independent
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11727 of 2021 dt.23-06-2026
4/6
concern with it. The relevant paragraphs 13 to 16 of the aforesaid
decision 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, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11727 of 2021 dt.23-06-2026
5/6
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11727 of 2021 dt.23-06-2026
6/6
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.”
7. In such view of the matter, the order of cognizance
dated 08.05.2019 passed in connection with Ara in Mahila,
Bhojpur P.S. Case No. 130 of 2018 by the learned S.D.J.M., Ara is
quashed insofar as it relates to Petitioner No. 1, Ajay Kumar
Pandey (father-in-law of Opposite Party No. 2), Petitioner No. 2,
Chanchala Devi (mother-in-law of Opposite Party No. 2) and
Petitioner No. 3, Amit Kumar Pandey (brother-in-law of Opposite
Party No. 2).
8. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.
(Ansul, J)
abhishekkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 25.06.2026
Transmission Date 25.06.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.