Patna High Court
Aklima Khatoon @ Aalima KhatunversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The order of cognizance dated 20‑10‑2014 is quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner.
Summary
The petition was filed by Aklima Khatoon seeking quash of the order of cognizance dated 20‑10‑2014 taken by the Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against her and her son. The complaint alleged dowry demand, cruelty and abortion, but the allegations against the petitioner (the mother‑in‑law) were vague, general and did not attribute any specific overt act. The High Court examined whether a prima facie case existed and whether the proceeding amounted to an abuse of process. Relying on Section 482 CrPC and precedents, the Court held that even taken at face value the allegations did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 498A or the Dowry Act against the petitioner. Accordingly, the order of cognizance was quashed as it amounted to abuse of the Court’s process, and the criminal proceeding against the petitioner was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of cognizance under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 Dowry Act against the petitioner should be quashed.
- Whether the complaint discloses a prima facie case of cruelty and dowry demand against the petitioner.
- Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- Section 498A
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- quash order
- abuse of process
- inherent jurisdiction
- Criminal Procedure Code
- prima facie case
- mother‑in‑law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12038 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2316 Year-2013 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Gaya
======================================================
Aklima Khatoon @ Aalima Khatun W/o Late Masuque Khan, R/o Village-
Baidhpura, P.S.- Gunia, District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar and Anr
2. Jeba Khatoon W/o Shamim Khan @ Guddu S/o late Masuque Khan, R/o
Village- Salempur, P.S.- Dhovi, District- Gaya.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rashid Izhar, Advcote
: Mr. SMI Quli, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Veena Rani, APP
: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
5 19-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 (O.P. No.2) as well as
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order
of cognizance dated 20.10.2014 passed by learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya (hereinafter referred to as
‘Magistrate’) in Complaint Case No. 2316 of 2013, wherein the
learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under
Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 4
of the Dowry Prohibition At, 1981 against the petitioner and her
son Shamim Khan (husband of O.P. No.2).
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12038 of 2018(5) dt.19-02-2026
2/10
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage
of O.P. No.2 (complainant) was solemnized with the son of the
petitioner on 04.05.2007 according to Muslim rites and customs.
It is alleged that at the time of marriage, a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-
along with ornaments and other articles was given by the
parents of the O.P. No.2. After marriage, O.P. No.2 allegedly
resided in her matrimonial home for about one year and gave
birth to a male child. Subsequently, it is alleged that she was
subjected to cruelty and torture on account of demand of
additional dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is further alleged that due
to lack of proper care and treatment, her second pregnancy
resulted in abortion. Thereafter, she returned to her parental
home. It is further alleged that her husband contracted a second
marriage on 20.10.2012 and retained her ornaments and gifts.
On these allegations, the complaint case was instituted.
Furthermore, in course of inquiry, the complainant examined
four witnesses in support of her case. Upon consideration of the
complaint and the statements recorded during inquiry, the
learned Magistrate took cognizance under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
against two accused persons, namely, Md. Shamim Khan
(husband of O.P. No.2) and the petitioner (mother-in-law of O.P.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12038 of 2018(5) dt.19-02-2026
3/10
No.2).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order dated 20.10.2014 passed by the learned
Magistrate taking cognizance under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is
wholly illegal, mechanical and passed without proper
application of judicial mind. Learned counsel submits that the
learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate that the allegations
made in the complaint petition are general, vague and omnibus
in nature and do not disclose any specific overt act attributable
to the petitioner, who is the mother-in-law of the complainant
(O.P. No.2). It is further submitted that even if the entire
complaint petition and the statements recorded during inquiry
are taken at their face value, no prima facie case under Section
498A IPC is made out against the petitioner. Moreover, learned
counsel submits that the witnesses examined during inquiry are
interested witnesses being family members of the complainant
(O.P. No.2) and none of them is an independent witness from
the matrimonial village of the accused persons.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the marriage between the complainant and the son of the
petitioner was solemnized on 04.05.2007 and, the O.P No.2 left
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12038 of 2018(5) dt.19-02-2026
4/10
her matrimonial home shortly after the marriage and never
resumed cohabitation despite repeated efforts. It is submitted
that the matrimonial relationship eventually broke down and
divorce was pronounced by the husband of O.P. No.2 on
20.09.2013 in accordance with Muslim personal law. It is
further submitted that the dower (mehr) and iddat amounts were
tendered to O.P. No.2 through money order, though the same
was allegedly refused. Learned counsel also submits that the
O.P. No.2 has subsequently contracted a second marriage in
June, 2015 and is leading peaceful conjugal life with her new
husband. She is blessed with a child from the said wedlock. The
son of the petitioner who was husband of O.P. No.2 has also
performed his second marriage and leading a peaceful conjugal
life. Learned counsel further submits that the complaint case has
been instituted only with an ulterior motive to harass the
petitioner and her son and to exert pressure for monetary gain. It
is further submitted that O.P. No.2 (complainant) has left her
pairvi in the court of learned Magistrate which is evident from
the order-sheet of the learned Magistrate which shows that
complainant was absent since 05.07.2018.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that
there was no demand of dowry at any point of time and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12038 of 2018(5) dt.19-02-2026
5/10
allegations regarding demand of Rs.5,00,000/- are bald and
unsubstantiated. It is submitted that the complaint lacks
essential ingredients of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code,
namely, cruelty of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury, or harassment in
connection with unlawful demand of dowry. It is submitted that
mere casual reference to torture without particulars cannot
sustain criminal prosecution. Lastly, it is submitted that
continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner,
who is an old lady of clean antecedent would amount to abuse
of the process of the Court. It is, therefore, prayed that this
Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of
process and to secure the ends of justice, quash the impugned
order of cognizance as well as the entire criminal proceeding
insofar as it relates to the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 submits that the
materials brought on record during inquiry were sufficient for
the learned Magistrate to form a prima facie opinion for taking
cognizance and, at this stage, meticulous appreciation of
evidence is neither required nor permissible. Learned counsel
further submits that the defence taken by the petitioner
regarding divorce, alleged desertion by the complainant,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12038 of 2018(5) dt.19-02-2026
6/10
subsequent remarriage, or tender of dower amount can be
adjudicated during the course of trial.
8. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that in view of
the facts and circumstances of the case, the appropriate order
may be passed by this Court in the interest of justice.
9. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties at
length. I have also perused the materials available on record and
the impugned order of cognizance dated 20.10.2014 passed by
the learned Magistrate. The question which arises for
consideration is whether the impugned order of cognizance in
view of facts and circumstances of the case warrants
interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
10. It is well settled that at the stage of taking
cognizance and issuance of process, the Magistrate is only
required to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out on
the basis of the complaint petition and the materials brought on
record during inquiry. The learned Magistrate is not expected to
meticulously examine the evidence or adjudicate upon disputed
questions of fact. At the same time, the order of cognizance
must reflect application of judicial mind to the allegations and
materials available on record. The inherent power of this Court
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12038 of 2018(5) dt.19-02-2026
7/10
carefully and with caution, only to prevent abuse of the process
of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. If the allegations,
even if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do not
constitute the offence alleged, or where the proceeding appears
manifestly attended with mala fide intention, this Court would
be justified in quashing the same.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v.
State of Haryana and Anr., reported in (2025) 3 SCC 756 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12038 of 2018(5) dt.19-02-2026
8/10
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)
12. Notably, 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
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.
13. Having heard the parties and upon perusal of the
complaint petition and the impugned order of cognizance dated
20.10.2014, this Court finds that the allegations against the
petitioner, who is the mother-in-law of the O.P. No.2, are
general and omnibus in nature. The complaint contains broad
allegations of demand of additional dowry and torture but does
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12038 of 2018(5) dt.19-02-2026
9/10
not attribute any specific overt act, date, or particular instance of
cruelty to the petitioner. No distinct role has been assigned to
her separate from that of the husband. Also, the petitioner is an
old lady who is in advanced stage of her life. It further appears
that the dispute between O.P. No.2 and her husband arose out of
matrimonial discord which ultimately culminated in divorce.
The materials on record indicate that the allegations are
primarily directed against the husband, and the implication of
the petitioner appears to be by way of general accusation. Even
if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face
value and accepted in entirety, the essential ingredients of
cruelty as contemplated under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code and demand under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
are not prima facie established against the petitioner.
14. Applying the aforesaid legal principles to the facts
of the present case, this Court finds that continuation of the
criminal proceeding against the petitioner would amount to
abuse of the process of the Court. The impugned order of
cognizance dated 20.10.2014, insofar as it relates to the
petitioner, therefore warrants interference in exercise of inherent
jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice.
15. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12038 of 2018(5) dt.19-02-2026
10/10
hereinabove, this application is allowed. The order of
cognizance dated 20.10.2014 passed by the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in Complaint Case
No.2316 of 2013, wherein the learned Magistrate took
cognizance of the offences under Section 498A of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition At,
1981 is hereby quashed insofar as it related to the petitioner.
16. Resultantly, the entire criminal proceeding arising
out of the aforesaid complaint case stands quashed against the
petitioner.
17. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
learned Court concerned forthwith.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
rakhi/-
U
Checking your session…