Patna High Court

HARIDWAR YADAV @ HARIDWAR SINGH YADAV and ORSversusState Of Bihar and Anr

Decided: 7 July 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

Holding

The High Court held that the allegations were vague and omnibus, no specific role was attributed to the petitioners, and thus the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process, warranting quash under Section 482.

Summary

The petitioners, who are in‑laws of the complainant, were charged under Section 498A IPC read with Section 34 and the Dowry Prohibition Act in a FIR filed after the complainant’s marriage had already been dissolved by an ex‑parte divorce decree. They sought discharge, which was rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, leading them to file a quash petition under Section 482 of the CrPC. The High Court examined whether the allegations against the in‑laws were specific enough to constitute a prima facie case and whether the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process. Finding the allegations vague, omnibus and lacking any specific overt act by the petitioners, and noting that the divorce had preceded the FIR, the Court held that continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the court’s process. Accordingly, it set aside the impugned orders and quashed the criminal proceedings against petitioners 1, 3, 4 and 5, allowing the application.

Issues considered

Whether the orders rejecting the petitioners' discharge applications can be set aside under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose a prima facie case against the in‑laws of the complainant.
Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings constitutes an abuse of the process of the court.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Section 482
Section 498A
Dowry harassment
Matrimonial dispute
Abuse of process
Quash of criminal proceedings
Inherent jurisdiction of High Court

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.439 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2014 Thana- CHAND District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Santosh Kumar Yadav @ Santosh Kumar @ Guddu son of Haridwar Yadav,
resident of Village- Chand, P.S.- Chand, District- Kaimur Bhabua at present
residing at New Majari Colliery, Chaitanya Colony, Q- C- 148, Shivaji Nagar,
P.S. Majri, P.O. Shivaji Nagar, District- Chadrapur, Maharastra, Pin Code-
442503.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anita Kumari, Daughter of Bimal Prasad Singh, resident of Village-
Bhatwalia, P.S.- Kudra, District- Kaimur.

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 1336 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2014 Thana- CHAND District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
1. Haridwar Yadav @ Haridwar Singh Yadav son of late Jhumri Yadav
2. Fulmati Devi wife of Haridwar Yadav
3. Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Yadav son of Haridwar Yadav all are
residents of village - Chand, P.S. - Chand, District - Kaimur Bhabua at
present residing at New Majari Collier, Chaitanya Colony, Q - C - 148,
Shivaji Nagar, P.S. Majri, P.O. Shivaji Nagar, District Chandrapur,
Maharastra, Pin Code - 442503.
4. Kiran Devi @ Kiran Devi wife of Manoj Kumar
5. Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Rajendra Yadav son of Rajendra Yadav Both are
residents of Majari, P.S. Majri, P.O. Shivaji Nagar, District Chandrapur,
Maharastra.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anita Kumari Daughter of Bimal Prasad Singh resident of Village -
Bhatwalia, P.S. - Kudra, District - Kaimur.

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 439 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Vishwa Shri Rajendra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, APP
Mr. Nagendra Prasad Yadav, Advocate
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.439 of 2018(13) dt.07-07-2026
2/12

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 1336 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Vishwa Shri Rajendra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar -1, APP
Mr Nagendra Prasad Yadav, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER

13 07-07-2026 Reg.:-CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.439 of 2018

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned

APP for the State.

2. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 06.09.2017 passed by

learned Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabua in Cr. Revision No.

95 of 2017 as well as the order dated 27.04.2017 passed by

learned A.C.J.M.-V, Bhabua in Chand P.S. Case No. 36 of 2014.

3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that this case may be disposed of with liberty

to the petitioner to take all the points as raised in this petition,

before the learned Trial Court at appropriate stage in accordance

with law.

4. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel of

O.P. No.2 have no objection to this prayer of the petitioner.

5. In view of the above, this case stands disposed of

with liberty to the petitioner, as prayed for.

Reg.:-CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 1336 of 2018

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.439 of 2018(13) dt.07-07-2026
3/12

APP for the State.

7. The present Criminal Miscellaneous application has

been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for quashing the order dated 06.09.2017 passed by

the learned Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Criminal

Revision No. 95 of 2017, whereby the revision application

preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 27.04.2017

has been rejected, and further for quashing the order dated

27.04.2017 passed by the learned A.C.J.M.-V, Kaimur at

Bhabhua arising out of Chand P.S. Case No. 36 of 2014,

whereby the petitioners’ discharge application has been

dismissed.

8. Earlier, vide order dated 22.06.2026, the present

quashing application with respect to petitioner no. 2, namely,

Fulmati Devi has already been dismissed as withdrawn since

she died during the pendency of the case.

9. The prosecution case, as set out in the FIR., is that

the marriage of the informant (O.P. No.2) with Santosh Kumar

Yadav (co-accused) was solemnized in the year 2004. At the

time of marriage, sufficient cash, ornaments, household articles

and a motorcycle were allegedly given as gift. It is alleged that

after the marriage, the O.P No.2 was subjected to cruelty by her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.439 of 2018(13) dt.07-07-2026
4/12

husband and in-laws on account of dissatisfaction with the

articles given in marriage. Subsequently, the husband allegedly

demanded a four-wheeler car and, upon non-fulfilment of the

said demand, the O.P No.2 was subjected to physical and mental

cruelty by her husband and petitioners herein. It is further

alleged that when O.P. No.2 came to know about the proposed

second marriage of her husband and protested, she was

assaulted by her husband and petitioners and was driven out of

her matrimonial home after snatching her clothes and jewellery.

On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, an FIR bearing Chand

P.S. Case No. 36 of 2014 was instituted under section 498A read

with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against present

petitioners and husband of O.P. No.2 on 16.06.2014.

10. Upon completion of investigation, the

Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet under Section

498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against accused

persons except petitioner nos. 4 and 5. Thereafter, the learned

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kaimur at Bhabhua, vide order

dated 04.09.2015, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences

against the petitioners and husband of O.P. No.2. The petitioners

thereafter preferred an application for discharge. However, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.439 of 2018(13) dt.07-07-2026
5/12

learned A.C.J.M.-V, Kaimur at Bhabhua, vide order dated

27.04.2017, rejected the prayer for discharge. Aggrieved by the

said order, the petitioners preferred Criminal Revision No. 95 of

2017 before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Kaimur at

Bhabhua. The learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated

06.09.2017, dismissed the revision application at the stage of

admission on the ground that allegation as made FIR gets

support from statements of material witnesses mentioned in

paras 2, 3, 4 and 5 of case diary. Aggrieved thereby, the

petitioners have preferred the present application under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the

orders dated 27.04.2017 and 06.09.2017, as well as the entire

criminal proceeding arising out of Chand P.S. Case No. 36 of

2014 insofar as the surviving petitioners are concerned.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the impugned orders dated 27.04.2017 and 06.09.2017 have

been passed in a routine and mechanical manner without proper

appreciation of the materials available on record. Learned

Counsel further submits that the allegations made in the FIR are

vague, omnibus and general in nature and no specific overt act

has been attributed to any of the petitioners. The petitioners

have been roped in merely because they are the relatives of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.439 of 2018(13) dt.07-07-2026
6/12

husband. He further submits that petitioner nos.1 and 3 are

father-in-law and brother-in-law of O.P. No.2 respectively, and

petitioner nos. 4 and 5, who are the married sister-in-law and her

husband respectively residing separately, were found innocent

during investigation, yet cognizance was taken against them

mechanically.

12. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the

marriage between O.P. No.2 and her husband had already been

dissolved by an ex parte decree of divorce dated 23.07.2013,

much prior to the institution of the present FIR., and the present

prosecution is nothing but a counterblast to the said decree. It is,

thus, submitted that continuation of the criminal proceeding

against the surviving petitioners would amount to an abuse of

the process of the Court and, accordingly, the orders dated

27.04.2017 and 06.09.2017, as well as the entire criminal

proceeding arising out of Chand P.S. Case No. 36 of 2014

deserves to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of

this Court.

13. Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 submits that the

materials collected during investigation, including the

allegations made in the FIR and the statements of the witnesses

in case diary, prima facie disclose the commission of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.439 of 2018(13) dt.07-07-2026
7/12

offences alleged by the petitioners. Learned counsel further

submits that O.P. No.2 has challenged the ex parte decree of

divorce, which is pending for consideration. He lastly, submits

that at this stage, a meticulous appreciation of evidence is

impermissible and hence, the present application, being devoid

of merit, be dismissed.

14. Learned APP for the State conceded that the

petitioners are the in-laws of the O.P. No.2 and further submits

that this Court may pass appropriate order in the interest of

justice.

15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

as well as the learned APP for the State, and upon perusal of the

materials available on record, the principal question which

arises for consideration before this Court is whether, in the facts

and circumstances of the present case, the impugned orders

dated 27.04.2017 and 06.09.2017 rejecting the petitioners'

prayer for discharge warrant interference in exercise of the

inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure.

16. At the outset, it is well settled that the inherent

jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Criminal

Procedure Code is to be exercised sparingly, with

circumspection and in the exceptional circumstances. While
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.439 of 2018(13) dt.07-07-2026
8/12

exercising such jurisdiction, the Court is required to assess

whether the uncontroverted allegations in the complaint

petition/FIR and the materials brought on record, taken at their

face value, prima facie disclose the commission of the alleged

offence against the accused and make out a prima facie case for

proceeding against them. 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.

17. 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. in

matrimonial offences. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.439 of 2018(13) dt.07-07-2026
9/12

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-A 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
498-A 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.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.439 of 2018(13) dt.07-07-2026
10/12

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.”

18. In the present case, this Court has carefully perused

submission of parties as well as materials available on records. It

transpires that except making general and omnibus allegations

against present petitioners, no specific overt act or distinct role

has been attributed to the present petitioners. The allegations

regarding demand of dowry and cruelty are vague in nature and

do not disclose as to which of the petitioners had made the

alleged demand or subjected the O.P. No.2 to cruelty. The

petitioners are the father-in-law, brother-in-law, married sister-in-

law and the husband of the married sister-in-law of O.P. No.2. It

further appears from the record that petitioner nos. 4 and 5, who

are admittedly residing separately, were found innocent during

investigation, yet cognizance was taken against them.

19. It further transpires from the materials on record

that the marriage between the O.P. No.2 and her husband had
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.439 of 2018(13) dt.07-07-2026
11/12

already been dissolved by an ex parte decree of divorce dated

23.07.2013, whereas the present FIR came to be instituted

thereafter as a counterblast of divorce decree.

20. The Supreme Court has consistently held that in

matrimonial disputes there is an increasing tendency to implicate

all the relatives of the husband on the basis of vague and

omnibus allegations. It has been held that criminal proceedings

against the relatives of the husband cannot be permitted to

continue in the absence of specific allegations disclosing their

individual role, and that the High Court would be justified in

exercising its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process

of the Court. Likewise, in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan

Lal and Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held that where the allegations, even if taken

at their face value, do not prima facie constitute the alleged

offence or where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended

with mala fides, the High Court may exercise its inherent

jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice.

21. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the

facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the allegations against the surviving petitioners are wholly

general, omnibus and bereft of any specific material indicating

their individual involvement and hence, continuation of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.439 of 2018(13) dt.07-07-2026
12/12

criminal proceeding against the surviving petitioners would,

therefore, amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

22. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.04.2017

passed by the learned A.C.J.M.-V, Kaimur at Bhabhua and the

order dated 06.09.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,

Kaimur at Bhabhua in Criminal Revision No. 95 of 2017 are

hereby set aside. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding

arising out of Chand P.S. Case No. 36 of 2014 is quashed qua

petitioner nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5.

23. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application

with respect to petitioner nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 is, accordingly,

allowed.

24. Interim order(s), if any, stands vacated.

25. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the

Court concerned forthwith for needful.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.