Patna High Court

Manoj Kumar and OrsversusState Of Bihar and Anr

Decided: 14 May 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

Holding

The Court held that the complaint's vague and general allegations did not prima facie constitute offences against the petitioners, and therefore the proceeding was an abuse of process and was quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

Summary

The complainant, Reena Kumari, alleged dowry demands, cruelty, and assault by her husband Santosh Kumar and his relatives, leading the magistrate to take cognizance under IPC sections 498A and 323 and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3 and 4. The petitioners, who are the husband’s brothers‑in‑law, sister‑in‑law and Gotni, filed a Section 482 CrPC application seeking quash of the order, contending that the complaint contained vague, omnibus allegations with no specific acts attributed to them. The High Court examined the complaint and held that the allegations, when taken at face value, did not disclose any prima facie offence by the petitioners and that proceeding against them would amount to abuse of process. Citing Supreme Court precedents on the limited exercise of inherent powers, the Court found the magistrate had mechanically taken cognizance without assessing the lack of specific accusations. Consequently, the order of cognizance was set aside for the petitioners and the criminal proceedings against them were quashed.

Issues considered

Whether the allegations in the complaint, taken at face value, disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Sections 3,4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceeding on the ground of vague, omnibus allegations and abuse of process.
Whether the magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the petitioners without specific attribution of overt acts.

Legislation cited

Subjects

dowry harassment
Section 498A
Section 482 CrPC
quash of criminal proceeding
abuse of process
matrimonial dispute
vague allegations

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18547 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-644 Year-2016 Thana- JEHANABAD COMPLAINT CASE
District- Jehanabad
======================================================
1. Manoj Kumar, Son of Rameshwar Prasad,
2. Bibha Devi, Wife of Manoj Kumar, null
3. Basanti Devi, D/o Rameshwar Prasad,
4. Sanjay Kumar, Son of Rameshwar Prasad. All R/o Village Irki Tola
Madarpur, P.S. District- Jehanabad.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Reena Kumari, w/o Santosh Kumar, R/o Irki Tola Madarpur P.S. and Distt.-
Jehanabad at present D/o Jagdish Pandit R/o Village Parkhand Colony P.S.
Ghoshi, Distt.- Jehanabad.

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER

10 14-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as

learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been filed under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing the order dated

18.09.2017 passed by the Court of learned C.J.M., Jehanabad

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Magistrate’) in connection with

Complaint Case No.644 of 2016, wherein the learned Magistrate

took cognizance of the offence under Sections 498A and 323 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 and 4 of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18547 of 2018(10) dt.14-05-2026
2/11

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the accused persons

including the present petitioners, who are in-laws of the O.P.

No.2.

3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as alleged in the

complaint petition is that the complainant (O.P. No.2) was

married to accused Santosh Kumar on 30.05.2015 according to

Hindu rites and customs and after solemnization of marriage,

she went to her matrimonial home where she resided for some

time. It has further been alleged that thereafter the accused

persons started subjecting her to cruelty and torture on account

of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, namely motorcycle,

colour television and cash amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The

complainant (O.P. No.2) has further alleged that she was

ultimately driven out from her matrimonial home on

20.10.2015. It is also alleged that the accused persons abused

and assaulted the complainant (O.P. No.2) and snatched away

her belongings and ornaments. Further allegation has been made

that accused Santosh Kumar solemnized second marriage with

another woman. It has also been stated that a petition before the

mediation centre/help line was filed on 03.11.2015 wherein

accused Santosh Kumar allegedly agreed to keep and maintain

the complainant (O.P. No.2). Subsequently, the complainant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18547 of 2018(10) dt.14-05-2026
3/11

(O.P. No.2) filed the Complaint Case No.644 of 2016.

4. Upon perusal of the complaint petition, solemn

affirmation of the complainant and the materials available on

record, the learned Magistrate found prima facie case against

the petitioners and vide the impugned order dated 18.09.2017

took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 498A

and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act and directed issuance of summons

against the accused persons. Being aggrieved by the said

impugned order of cognizance and continuation of the criminal

proceeding, the present application has been preferred by the

petitioners, who are Bhaisur (petitioner no.1), Gotni (petitioner

no.2), married Nanad (petitioner no.3) and Bhaisur (petitioner

no.4) of the O.P. No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners are innocent persons and have falsely been

implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive and

personal vendetta. He submits that the allegations made in the

complaint petition are wholly vague, omnibus and general in

nature and no specific overt act has been attributed against the

present petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that except

making bald and sweeping allegations regarding demand of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18547 of 2018(10) dt.14-05-2026
4/11

dowry and torture, no specific date, time or manner of

occurrence has been disclosed in the complaint petition so far as

these petitioners are concerned.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits

that petitioner nos.1 to 4 are relatives of the husband and were

living separately and were not members of a joint family. He

submits that petitioner no.1 is the brother-in-law (Bhaisur),

petitioner no.2 is Gotni, petitioner no.3 is married sister-in-law

(Nand) and petitioner no.4 is also brother-in-law of the

complainant (O.P. No.2) and, therefore, their implication in the

present case is wholly malicious and only with a view to harass

the entire family. It is submitted that no material has been

brought on record to substantiate the allegations levelled against

the petitioners and continuation of the criminal proceeding

against them would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly submits

that the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order

mechanically without proper appreciation of the materials

available on record and without recording adequate satisfaction

regarding existence of prima facie case against the petitioners. It

is, thus, submitted that the impugned order taking cognizance as

well as the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18547 of 2018(10) dt.14-05-2026
5/11

Case No.644 of 2016 are fit to be quashed in exercise of

inherent powers of this Court.

8. Learned APP for the State fairly submits that the

learned Magistrate, after considering the complaint petition and

the materials available on record, found prima facie case and

accordingly took cognizance of the offences against the

petitioners. However, it is submitted that since the petitioners

are relatives of the husband of O.P. No.2, appropriate order may

be passed.

9. Despite valid service of notice upon O.P. No.2, and

ample opportunity provided thereto, none appears on behalf of

the O.P. No.2 when this matter was taken up for hearing.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

upon perusal of the materials available on record, it is pertinent

to note that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the

Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great

caution in order to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or

otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is well settled that

while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.,

this Court is not expected to embark upon an inquiry with

regard to the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in

the complaint petition and only has to examine as to whether the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18547 of 2018(10) dt.14-05-2026
6/11

allegations made in the complaint petition, taken at their face

value, disclose commission of any offence or not.

11. It is further well settled that in cases arising out of

matrimonial disputes involving offences under Section 498A of

the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, the inherent power of quashing is to be

exercised with due care and caution. The Court is required to

examine whether the allegations made in the complaint petition,

if taken on their face value, prima facie constitute the

ingredients of the offences alleged. However, where the

allegations are found to be vague, omnibus and general in nature

without any specific attribution of overt act against the accused

persons, particularly against the relatives of the husband,

continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse

of the process of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of

decisions has repeatedly cautioned against the tendency of

implicating all family members of the husband in matrimonial

disputes without disclosing their specific role in the alleged

occurrence.

12. It is equally settled that while considering an

application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court is

not expected to conduct a mini trial or meticulously appreciate
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18547 of 2018(10) dt.14-05-2026
7/11

the evidentiary value of the materials available on record.

Nevertheless, where the allegations made in the complaint

petition are inherently improbable or do not disclose the

essential ingredients of the offences under Section 498A of the

Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act against certain accused persons, the Court

would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to

secure the ends of justice and to prevent misuse of the criminal

machinery. Particularly in cases where distant or separately

residing relatives are implicated by way of sweeping and bald

allegations, without mentioning any specific act of cruelty,

demand of dowry or participation in the alleged occurrence, the

criminal proceeding against such accused persons may be liable

to be quashed.

13. 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 482 CrPC was examined.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18547 of 2018(10) dt.14-05-2026
8/11

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
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)

14. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled legal

position, this Court has carefully examined the allegations made

in the complaint petition as well as the materials available on

record. From perusal of the complaint petition, it transpires that

though allegations regarding demand of dowry, torture and

assault have been levelled, the same are general and omnibus in

nature so far as the present petitioners are concerned. Except

making bald allegations against all the accused persons

collectively, the complainant (O.P. No.2) has not attributed any

specific overt act to these petitioners indicating their individual
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18547 of 2018(10) dt.14-05-2026
9/11

involvement in the alleged occurrence. No specific date, time or

manner of alleged torture or demand of dowry by the present

petitioners has been disclosed in the complaint petition.

15. This Court further finds that petitioners are

relatives of the husband and specific stand has been taken by the

petitioners that they were residing separately and were not

members of a joint family. Petitioner no.3 is a married sister-in-

law of the complainant (O.P. No.2), whereas petitioner nos.1

and 4 are brothers-in-law and petitioner no.2 is Gotni of the O.P.

No.2. In the entire complaint petition, no specific material has

been brought on record to prima facie demonstrate active

participation of these petitioners in the alleged acts of cruelty or

demand of dowry. The allegations appear to have been made in

a sweeping manner against all family members without

delineating their distinct roles.

16. Having regard to the nature of allegations made in

the complaint petition and considering the absence of specific

and distinct accusations against the present petitioners, this

Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal

proceeding against these petitioners would amount to abuse of

the process of the Court. The learned Magistrate, while passing

the impugned order, does not appear to have considered the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18547 of 2018(10) dt.14-05-2026
10/11

absence of specific allegations against the present petitioners

and mechanically proceeded to take cognizance against all the

accused persons. In such circumstances, interference by this

Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction is found to be justified.

17. In the facts and circumstances of the present case,

this Court finds that the case of the present petitioners squarely

falls within the categories illustratively laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v.

Bhajan Lal and Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335,

wherein it has been held that the inherent power under Section

482 of the Cr.P.C. may be exercised where the allegations made

in the complaint petition, even if taken at their face value, do not

prima facie constitute any offence against the accused persons

or where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with

mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for

wreaking vengeance. In the present case, as discussed

hereinabove, the allegations against the petitioners are omnibus

and general in nature without any specific attribution of overt

act and, therefore, continuation of the criminal proceeding

against them would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

18. Accordingly, the impugned order dated

18.09.2017 passed by the learned C.J.M., Jehanabad in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18547 of 2018(10) dt.14-05-2026
11/11

Complaint Case No.644 of 2016, whereby cognizance has been

taken for the offences under Section 498A and 323 of the Indian

Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

against the present petitioners, is hereby set aside so far as the

present petitioners are concerned. Resultantly, the entire

criminal proceeding arising therefrom qua the petitioners also

stands quashed.

19. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application,

accordingly, stands allowed.

20. Interim order(s), if any, passed earlier in this

matter stands vacated.

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

Court concerned forthwith for needful.

22. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the

Court concerned without delay.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.