Patna High Court
Reena Devi @ Runa Devi @ Runa KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The cognizance order against the petitioner is quashed as the allegations are vague, unsupported by concrete evidence, and amount to an abuse of process.
Summary
Reena Devi, a widow and sister‑in‑law of the complainant, filed an application to quash the cognizance order dated 04‑09‑2024 that had taken her into account under Sections 323 and 498A of the IPC. The complaint alleged dowry demands, assault and an attempt to kill, but the petitioner argued that she had no involvement in the matrimonial dispute and that the allegations were vague and based on suspicion. The Court observed that the petitioner was merely a Jethani and that the FIR contained generalized accusations without specific evidence of her participation. Relying on Supreme Court pronouncements cautioning against the misuse of Section 498A in matrimonial conflicts, the Court held that the allegations against the petitioner amounted to an abuse of process. Consequently, the order of the Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance against the petitioner was quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether the cognizance order against the petitioner under Sections 323 and 498A is maintainable in view of vague and unspecific allegations.
- Whether the inclusion of the petitioner in the complaint constitutes an abuse of the legal process in a matrimonial dispute.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- matrimonial dispute
- abuse of process
- Section 498A
- Section 323
- quash of cognizance
- family members
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13568 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1090 Year-2021 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Reena Devi @ Runa Devi @ Runa Kumari wife of Late Rajeev Kumar
village- Mahnar, Ps- Mahnar, Dist- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Versa Rani Wife of Mukesh Kumar village- Rambag Chouri, Ps-
Mithanpura, dist- Muzaffarpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nafisu Zzoha, Advocate
Ms. Shabina Talat, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sanjay Kr. @ S.K., Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 12-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for O.P. No. 2 and the learned APP for the State.
2. This application has been filed setting aside/quashing
the cognizance order dated 04.09.2024 passed in Complaint Case
No. 1090 of 2021 dated 07.06.2021 by the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Muzaffarpur (East), whereby the learned
Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 323 and 498(A) of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. The fact giving rise to the present application is to
the effect that the petitioner lodged a complaint is that
complainant and accused No. 1, i.e., husband, had solemnized
marriage in year 2017 where demand of cash as gift has been
made for purchasing flat, furniture, utensils, clothes and gold/
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13568 of 2025(5) dt.12-02-2026
2/6
silver jewelleries were also gifted by family of complainant.
Thereafter, accused persons raised demand of one kattha of land
in Muzaffarpur and subsequently more demand was made for cash
and other articles from time to time. The accused persons started
torturing the complainant and upon complaint to Mahila Helpline
by her they assured to keep her well but again after some time
assaulted her and allegedly accused No.2 tried to kill her by
pressing her neck after which she started screaming and was saved
by people nearby. It is alleged that petitioner who is widow (wife
of brother of accused No.1) had illicit relationship with accused
No.1 and she saw them in objectionable condition. It is also
alleged that brother of complainant was also assaulted when they
questioned the accused people and they kept on demanding
dowry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no
offence as alleged by prosecution has been committed nor any
such incident took place. It is further been submitted that
complainant herself tortured the in-laws and deserted her
matrimonial home. It is submission of petitioner that she is Jethani
of complainant and lived separately unconcerned with family
affairs. The allegation is only based on suspicion showing ill
thought of complainant and absence of any particular incident
renders the story unbelievable.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13568 of 2025(5) dt.12-02-2026
3/6
5. The learned APP vehemently opposes the prayer for
quashing and setting aside the cognizance order against petitioner
as allegations of adultery and assault are serious in nature.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the records of the case, it is evident that the
petitioner happens to be the widow sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the
husband of the complainant. It has also been observed that from a
plain reading of the FIR, it would be evident that the allegations
of demand are stated to have started even prior to the marriage.
The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner being a widow and she happens to be the
Jethani of the complainant she does not have anything to say with
regard to household matters of her Devar, husband of the
complainant and therefore lodging of the present complaint case
against the petitioner amounts to abuse of the process of law. It
has also been observed that merely on the statement, the ultimate
averment of the complainant, the case has been found to be true
against the petitioner despite the fact that they were altogether
eight witnesses having been examined during the inquiry.
7. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner
happens to be the Jethani of the complainant/Bhabhi of the
husband of the complainant and also on account of level of
allegations being made against the petitioner who is stated to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13568 of 2025(5) dt.12-02-2026
4/6
like a mother figure to the husband of the complainant, the present
case reflects to be the exaggerated version of the matrimonial
dispute.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussions and taking into
account the fact that there is common practice in such matrimonial
disputes of implicating the entire family members and levelling
allegations which are not only unbelievable and so exaggerated
that the same cannot be said to be reasonable.
9. In view of various judicial pronouncements in case
of Dara Lakshmi Narayana v State of Telangana (2024) 12 SCR
559 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed:
“25. A mere reference to the
names of family members in a criminal
case arising out of a matrimonial
dispute, without specific allegations
indicating their active involvement
should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-
recognised fact, borne out of judicial
experience, that there is often a tendency
to implicate all the members of the
husband's family when domestic disputes
arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such
generalised and sweeping accusations
unsupported by concrete evidence or
particularised allegations cannot form
the basis for criminal prosecution.
Courts must exercise caution in such
cases to prevent misuse of legal
provisions and the legal process and
avoid unnecessary harassment of
innocent family members. In the present
case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the
members of the family of appellant No.1
have been living in different cities and
have not resided in the matrimonial
house of appellant No. 1 and respondent.
28. The inclusion of Section
498A of the IPC by way of an amendment
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13568 of 2025(5) dt.12-02-2026
5/6
was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on
a woman by her husband and his family,
ensuring swift intervention by the State.
However, in recent years, as there have
been a notable rise in matrimonial
disputes across the country, accompanied
by growing discord and tension within
the institution of marriage, consequently,
there has been a growing tendency to
misuse provisions like Section 498A of
the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal
vendetta against the husband and his
family by a wife. Making vague and
generalised allegations during
matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized,
will lead to the misuse of legal processes
and an encouragement for use of arm-
twisting tactics by a wife and/or her
family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to
invoke Section 498A of the IPC against
the husband and his family in order to
seek compliance with the unreasonable
demands of a wife. Consequently, this
Court has, time and again, cautioned
against prosecuting the husband and his
family in the absence of a clear prima
facie case against them.”
10. This development has been reiterated again in
number of instances, one of them being Muppidi Lakshmi
Narayana Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 SCCOnline
SC 884 holding that:
“8. Having heard learned
counsel for the parties and on perusal of
record it appears that there are omnibus
and general allegations against the
appellants. As per complaint, although,
they reside at Hyderabad, they used to
visit Guntur and during such visit they
used to instigate accused no. 1/husband
and his parents and would also join in
demanding dowry. The initial allegation
is of demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- made
against accused No. 4/appellant no. 1
with further statement that they used to
taunt that if accused no. 1 would have
married somewhere else, he would have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13568 of 2025(5) dt.12-02-2026
6/6
got Rs. 10 crores dowry. There is no
allegation of any physical torture being
perpetrated by the present appellants.
The allegation is only of taunt and
statement that they are highly placed
having political influence and
connection with Ministers as such they
instigated accused no. 1 to accused no. 3
to pressurise the de-facto complainant to
get additional dowry.
12. Considering the entire
facts of the case, we are of the view,
having relied on this Court's previous
decisions in Geeta Mehrotra (supra) &
Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra), the
present criminal case against the
appellants deserves to be quashed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and
Criminal Case No. 359 of 2016 against
the appellants is quashed.”
11. Considering the facts aforesaid and taking into
account the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties, the order impugned dated 04.09.2024 passed in Complaint
Case No. 1090 of 2021 dated 07.06.2021 by the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Muzaffarpur (East) as against the petitioner
is, hereby, quashed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
krishna/-
U T
Checking your session…