Patna High Court
Sumitra DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The order taking cognizance against the petitioner is quashed as the allegations against her are vague, unspecific and amount to a super‑addition in a matrimonial dispute.
Summary
The petitioner, Sumitra Devi, mother‑in‑law of the accused husband, filed an application invoking the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to quash the order of cognizance dated 02‑04‑2024 against her under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 504, 506, 34 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The FIR alleged dowry demands and cruelty by the husband and his family, but the petitioner's counsel argued that the allegations against her were vague, unsupported by independent witnesses, and stemmed from a matrimonial dispute. The opposite party contended that specific dowry‑related assaults were proved. The Court examined the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2025) 3 SCC 735, which cautions against prosecuting family members without concrete, particularised allegations in domestic disputes. Finding the petitioner's inclusion to be a super‑addition based on general accusations, the Court held that the order taking cognizance was improper and quashed it, allowing the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the order taking cognizance against the petitioner, a mother‑in‑law, is valid in the absence of specific allegations of her participation in the alleged offences.
- Whether the provisions of Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act can be invoked against a family member when the case arises from matrimonial discord.
- Whether the High Court can, under its inherent jurisdiction, quash the cognizance order on the ground of abuse of process.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- domestic violence
- Section 498A misuse
- criminal procedure
- inherent jurisdiction
- quash of cognizance
- matrimonial dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.140 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2023 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Sumitra Devi, W/o Ramesh Prasad @ Ramesh Prasad Gupta, R/O Vill.- Akodi
Gola, P.S.- Akodi Gola, Dist.- Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Simran Kumari, Wife of Sunny Kumar, D/O Vinod Kumar, R/O Vill.- Akodi
Gola, P.S.- Akodi Gola, Dist.- Rohtas. At Present R/at Ward no.7, P.S.-
Nabinagar, Dist.- Aurangabad.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aman Vishal, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, APP
For the Opposite Party No.2: Ms. Mukul Kumari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 23-02-2026
Heard Mr. Aman Vishal, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Ms. Mukul Kumari, learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present application has been filed by the
petitioner invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Court for quashing the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the
learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad (Bihar)
in Trial No.1898 of 2024 arising out of Aurangabad Mahila P.S.
Case No.61 of 2023 dated 05.11.2023 by which cognizance for
the offence under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 504, 506, 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.140 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
2/9
Act, 1961 has been taken against the petitioner.
3. The facts giving rise to the present application are
to the effect that the informant, Simran Kumari/ opposite party
no.2 alleged that her marriage was solemnized with Sunny
Kumar on 28.06.2023 in Aurangabad and at the time of
marriage, cash of Rs.30,00,000/- was given along with jewelry
and other household articles as gifts. It is alleged that after
reaching her matrimonial house, she was demanded a
motorcycle and diamond ring and when she showed her
inability, she was abused and assaulted by Sunny Kumar
(husband) and Sumitra Devi mother-in-law (petitioner), Puja
Kumari and Mita Devi. It is alleged that when the parents of the
informant/ opposite party no.2 came for conciliation, even they
were abused and ousted from her matrimonial house along with
the informant/ opposite party no.2. It is alleged that the husband
of the informant/ opposite party no.2 took her back again on
05.11.2023, however, the husband and mother-in-law started
harassing her again for dowry. It has lastly been alleged that her
husband had locked her in a room and had assaulted her and she
was also four months pregnant at the relevant time.
4. Upon such complaint, Aurangabad Mahila P.S.
Case No. 61 of 2023 was registered for the offences under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.140 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
3/9
Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code against Sunny Kumar (husband), Sumitra Devi mother-in-
law (petitioner), Puja Kumari and Mita Devi.
5. After investigation, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet
for the aforesaid offences along with Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 and subsequently, upon submission of the
charge-sheet cognizance was also taken vide order dated
02.04.2024 against accused Sunny Kumar and the petitioner for
the alleged offences.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the
impugned order taking cognizance on the ground that the
present case is a fall out of matrimonial discord between
husband and the wife and she has falsely been implicated in the
present matter on false and fabricated story. It has further been
submitted that from perusal of the FIR, it would appear that
barring general and omnibus allegation of cruelty alleged
against the petitioner, there is nothing specific alleged against
her. It has next been submitted that during the course of
investigation no independent witness has supported the
prosecution allegations and only the family members of the
informant/opposite party no.2 have been inquired during the
investigation and they have only repeated what has been stated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.140 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
4/9
in the FIR.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
fact the informant had been creating trouble for the son of the
petitioner, i.e., the husband of the informant/opposite party no.2
and on account of such threat, her son, Sunny Kumar had filed
an informatory application dated 18.08.2023 before the learned
Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dehri On-sone, Rohtas,
wherein he had categorically stated that he had apprehension of
a false case being lodged against him by his wife, the informant/
opposite party no.2 or her father.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
fact that the petitioner was himself very perturbed by the actions
of the opposite party no.2 and because of her behaviour and
regularly leaving him and going back to his parents’ house, that
he filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights and the
same was registered as Matrimonial Case No. 402 of 2023,
however, the informant has chosen not to appear even after
several issuances of notice and lastly, paper publication has also
been made.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner, only because she happens to be the mother of co-
accused Sunny Kumar husband of the informant/ opposite party
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.140 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
5/9
no.2, this false case has been lodged with vague and vexatious
allegations. The lodging of the FIR amounts to an abuse of the
process of law and if the same is permitted to proceed ahead, it
would amount to allowing a malicious prosecution to continue.
10. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has
submitted while referring to her counter affidavit that the
marriage of the opposite party no.2 with the petitioner’s son was
solemnized on 18.06.2023 and she also became pregnant,
however, the petitioner and his son had been assaulting opposite
party no.2 and had also damaged her unborn child. It has been
stated by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that
there are specific allegations of demand of dowry and torture
against her and all the witnesses during investigation have
supported the allegations against the petitioner. It has been
submitted that the opposite party no.2 was confined in a room
by the son of the petitioner and the petitioner both and she was
rescued by the help of co-villagers. It has been contended that
the petitioner has recently appeared before the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Rohtas in the matrimonial case filed by the
son of the petitioner, her husband.
11. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, thus,
submits that the order taking cognizance is legal and has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.140 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
6/9
passed after taking into account the evidence which has come
during the course of investigation and there is an allegation
against the petitioner to be along with her son in torturing her
for demand of dowry.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and upon perusal of their respective pleadings, it is a case of
matrimonial discord between the petitioner’s son and the
opposite party no.2. It is clear that on one hand the petitioner’s
son has filed a matrimonial case for restitution of conjugal rights
and on the other the opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR for the
offences under Section 498A and other ancillary offences.
13. On going through the facts of the case, it
transpires that the marriage was solemnized on 28.06.2023,
while the first petition was filed by the son of the petitioner on
18.08.2023, i.e., within two months of their marriage, as an
informatory application of being falsely implicated in the case.
The conduct of the son of the petitioner further speaks about his
intentions that he has filed an application for restitution of
conjugal rights which also goes on to show that it was the
opposite party no.2, who was refraining from being with the
petitioner within few months of their marriage.
14. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.140 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
7/9
judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and ors. vs. State of Telangana
and Anr. reported in (2025) 3 SCC 735, wherein it was
observed:
27. 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,
Appellants 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of
Appellant 1 have been living in different cities and
have not resided in the matrimonial house of Appellant
1 and Respondent 2 herein. Hence, they cannot be
dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would
be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of
specific allegations made against each of them.
30. The inclusion of Section 498-A IPC by
way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty
inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family,
ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.140 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
8/9
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 498-A 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 scrutinised, 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 498-A 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.
15. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements
and the facts and circumstances of the case the implication of
the petitioner with general and omnibus allegations along with
her son is found to be a super addition and therefore, the
observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to the
family members being implicated in the case of matrimonial
discord with generalized and sweeping accusations not
supported the by the concrete evidence, this Court does not find
it proper that the criminal proceedings as against the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.140 of 2025 dt.23-02-2026
9/9
may continue and therefore the order dated 02.04.2024 passed
by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad
(Bihar), in Trial No.1898 of 2024 arising out of Aurangabad
Mahila P.S. Case No.61 of 2023 dated 05.11.2023 by which
cognizance for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 504,
506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 has been taken against the petitioner is
hereby quashed.
16. Accordingly, the application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 06.02.2026
Uploading Date 24.02.2026
Transmission Date 24.02.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.