Patna High Court
KRANTI KUMAR MISHRAversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The order of cognizance dated 14‑09‑2020 is quashed as no prima facie case exists against the petitioners.
Summary
The widow Kumari Arunima alleged that her in‑law relatives subjected her to cruelty, dowry demands, theft and physical abuse during her marriage, leading to a FIR and cognizance under IPC sections 341, 323, 379, 498A and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3 and 4. The petitioners, who are her in‑laws, moved the High Court to quash the order of cognizance, arguing that the allegations were vague, unsupported by evidence, and filed only after a long delay following her husband’s death. The Court examined the FIR, noted the lack of specific dates, the 13‑year gap before any complaint, and the separation of the petitioners from the complainant, concluding that no prima facie case existed under section 498A. Relying on several Supreme Court precedents that caution against criminalising domestic disputes on generalized accusations, the Court held that proceeding would be an abuse of process. Consequently, the order of cognizance dated 14‑09‑2020 was quashed and the applications were allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR and the order of cognizance disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners under IPC section 498A and related provisions.
- Whether the allegations made by the informant are sufficiently specific and supported by material evidence to justify continuation of criminal proceedings.
- Whether the delay in filing the complaint and the nature of the allegations constitute an abuse of the criminal process warranting quashing of the proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 379, 498A
Subjects
- domestic violence
- dowry harassment
- section 498A
- quashing of criminal proceedings
- abuse of process
- vague allegations
- family dispute
- Indian Penal Code
- Dowry Prohibition Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16948 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-160 Year-2020 Thana- KASIMBAZAR District- Munger
======================================================
1. Sushma Pandey Wife Of Sri Ravi Narayan Pandey R/O C/O Saleshwar
Prasad Sinha, House No.1, West Of Salam, Kankarbagh, Patna, Sampatchak,
Lohia Nagar, Patna 800020
2. Ravi Narayan Pandey Son Of Janardhan Pandey R/O C/O Saleshwar Prasad
Sinha, House No.1, West Of Salam, Kankarbagh, Patna, Sampatchak, Lohia
Nagar, Patna 800020
3. Archana Mishra Wife Of Dhananjay Kumar R/O C/O Ranjit Singh, New
Purandarpur, Near Old Jakkanpur Police Station, Patna, Phulwari, Patna
800001
4. Dhananjay Kumar Son Of Nagendra Nath Mishra R/O C/O Ranjit Singh,
New Purandarpur, Near Old Jakkanpur Police Station, Patna, Phulwari,
Patna 800001
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kumari Arunima wife of late Arun kumar mishra, d/o Surendra Chandra
Pathak presently r/o mohalla- puraniganj (jamalpur road), p.s.- Kasim bazar,
p.o. And district- munger
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 19092 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-160 Year-2020 Thana- KASIMBAZAR District- Munger
======================================================
1. Kranti Kumar Mishra s/o late mukti nath mishra r/o quarter no. 166(slum),
p.s.-kankarbagh,dist.- patna.
2. Motijhari Mishra @ mothijhari devi w/o shri kranti kumar mishra r/o quarter
no. 166(slum), p.s.-kankarbagh, dist.-patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kumari Arunima Late Arun Kumar Mishra R/O Mohalla
Puraniganj(Jamalpur Road), P.S- Kasim Bazar, P.O And District- Munger.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 16948 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Aditi Hansari, Advocate
Mr.Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
Mr. Pratik Raj, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Binod Kumar, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 19092 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Aditi Hansari, Advocate
Mr.Nikhil Kumar Agrawal
Mr. Pratik Raj, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Ramchandra Sahni, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16948 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
2/13
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-02-2026
Both the applications are being heard together as they arise
out of the common order of cognizance dated 14.09.2020 passed by the
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger.
2. Heard Ms. Aditi Hansaria, the learned counsel for the
petitioners assisted by Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal and Mr. Pratik Raj,
the learned advocates and Mr. Binod Kumar and Ramchandra Sahni, the
learned A.P.P for the State and Mr. Harish Kumar, the learned counsel
appearing for the O.P. No. 2.
3. The present applications are being filed for quashing
the order dated 14.09.2020 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Munger in connection with Kasimbazar P.S Case
No. 160 of 2020 whereby cognizance has been taken under sections
341, 323, 379, 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as IPC) and sections 3 and 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961.
4. All the petitioners in aforesaid two applications happen
to be the in-laws of the opposite party no. 2 (Informant). Petitioner no. 1
and 3 are the sisters-in-law while petitioner no. 2 and 4 are the brothers
-in-law of the Informant respectively in Cr. Misc. No. 16948 of 2023;
whereas Cr. Misc. No. 19092 of 2023 has been preferred by the father-
in-law and the mother-in-law of the Informant who are petitioner no. 1
and petitioner no. 2 respectively.
5. The allegations levelled by the Informant in brief is
that her marriage was solemnized on 06.05.2007 with Late Arun Kumar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16948 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
3/13
Mishra as per the Hindu rites and rituals. The Informant states that soon
after the marriage she was treated with cruelty, abused and beaten by the
petitioners hereinabove and the situation did not ameliorate even after
she told her husband about this and was resolved only after the
intervention of her parents. She further alleges that even while she was
pregnant, she was forced to deliver her child at her parents’ home
because of a displeasing situation at her matrimonial home. Further, her
father-in-law asked her for the jewellery she brought from her parental
home with an estimated worth of Rs. 7 lakhs, took her clothes and gave
it to her daughters and further demanded a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as dowry
and a motorcycle for his son-in-law, upon refusal of which, she was
beaten and the jewellery worn by her was taken by the father-in-law.
Subsequently, when the financial condition of the husband of the
Informant improved, the same was distastefully noted by the in-laws.
She has further called her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law to be of
objectionable character. The Informant asserts that the in-laws were
mentally harassing her husband intending to cause harm to his life as he
was a heart patient and during the covid-19 lockdown the Informant’s
husband felt discomfort and needed to be admitted in a hospital in
emergency however none of the in-laws helped, and thereafter the
Informant had to alone take her husband to hospital wherein he died of
cardiac arrest on 27.04.2020. The Informant gave a written report on
01.05.2020 and a formal First Information Report (hereinafter referred
to as F.I.R.) bearing Kasimbazar P.S. Case No. 160/2020 was lodged on
22.06.2020 against the petitioners named above, based thereupon.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16948 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
4/13
6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that it
would evident from the bare perusal of the F.I.R. that the allegations
made therein are by and large, general and omnibus in nature and are
baseless with no substantiation of the same and are mechanically
adjudged by the court below and the cognizance therein has been taken
without the application of judicial mind. The learned counsel has further
pointed out the fact that the marriage was solemnized in the year 2007
and the husband of the Informant (O.P. no. 2) died in the year 2020, i.e.,
after 13 years of marriage, yet the Informant never filed a legal
complaint during his lifetime rather, merely four days after the death of
the informant’s husband and the son of the petitioner no 1 and 2 of Cr.
Misc. 19092/2023, the written report dated 01.05.2020, was filed with
oblique motive and the F.I.R. based on the same, was lodged on
22.06.2020 after almost 2 months and no convincing explanation for the
same was tendered. The learned counsel also submits that the brothers-
in-law and the sisters-in-law live separately from the Informant from
even before the marriage of the informant and have no concern with
their day-to-day affairs. Furthermore, the allegations against the father-
in-law, about 80 years of age and the mother-in-law are also false,
baseless and absurd as they are very old persons living in a government
rented quarter and the father-in-law is completely bed ridden and
suffering from paralysis. It was also submitted that the father-in-law of
the Informant executed a gift deed, duly registered in the name of his
grandson Arunesh Mishra (Informant’s son) where she is residing and
even earning rent from a portion thereof. Help was also extended by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16948 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
5/13
providing substantial amount of money to the Informant and her
husband to enable them to purchase a piece of land which duly shows
his fondness towards his grandson and the Informant and her husband.
The learned counsel further submits that the penal provisions under
which the F.I.R. has been filed do not stand true against the petitioners
and the bare perusal of the F.I.R. itself will prove that none of the
essential ingredients of the alleged sections are met, and the allegations
are baseless with an intention to extort money from the petitioners
which has been done under the master mind of the Informant’s father
who happens to be an advocate himself.
7. Per Contra, the learned APP for the State and the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 have
vehemently opposed the quashing of the impugned order taking
cognizance on the ground that a prima facie case is made out against the
above named petitioners and hence, there is no illegality in the order
impugned, as such, it warrants no interference. Learned counsel has
additionally submitted that the informant is a widow, as such, the other
family members are responsible for the cruelty meted out to her.
8. Having heard the rival contentions of learned counsels
for the parties and upon perusal of records, it appears that the allegations
levelled by the Informant against the petitioners named above are
general and omnibus in nature, and no material evidence to support the
same has been placed before this Court. It is also noted that the
Informant, although has been married for 13 years, yet never attempted
to file a complaint before any authority and has filed this written report
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16948 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
6/13
merely after 4 days of the death of her husband and the F.I.R. was
lodged on 22.06.2020, after almost 2 months upon the said report. Upon
the perusal of the F.I.R. it is also noted that the Informant has not
mentioned any specific date or time period for the alleged occurrence,
as such, the same also suffers from the vice of vagueness. Before going
on to the law laid down by way of various judicial pronouncements
made by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to criminalizing domestic
disputes without specific allegations and credible materials to support
the same, it would be first necessary to adjudicate on the issue as to
whether the allegations made in the F.I.R. make out a case under section
498A of the IPC. At this stage, it would be relevant to quote the
provision of section 498A of the IPC which is as follows :
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty.-
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the
husband of a woman, subjects such woman to
cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to three years and shall
also be liable to fine.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this section,
"cruelty" means-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as
is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or
to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security or is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16948 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
7/13
on account of failure by her or any person related
to her to meet such demand."
9. From a bare perusal of the above-mentioned provision,
it would be apparent that the said provision has been divided into two
parts wherein the first part deals with any wilful conduct being of such
nature likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave
injuries or danger to her life. The assertions made in the F.I.R. do not
make out a case which have such serious and disastrous consequences
leading the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury upon her
as no complaint was made till thirteen years of marriage. The second
part of the provision, dealing with harassment with a view to coercing
her for meeting any unlawful demand for property also needs to be
established by a series of acts to constitute harassment in its literal
meaning and spirit. Merely making reference to some demands being
made from the informant and her jewellery and clothes being taken,
would not amount to harassment and cruelty as contemplated under
section 498A of the IPC.
10. Coming to the question of complicity of these
petitioners, the allegations of subjecting the informant to any torture, is
totally vague, general and omnibus as also sweeping in nature. It has
been laid down by several judicial pronouncements that when the family
relationships are sought to be brought within the ambit of criminal
proceedings, the courts should be circumspect and judicious and should
allow invocation of criminal processes only when there are specific
allegations with supporting materials which clearly constitute criminal
offences. All acts of a dissatisfied and disgruntled wife or daughter-in-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16948 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
8/13
law, cannot be brought within the purview of section 498A of the IPC,
as such, the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious while
dealing with such cases by strictly examining whether there are specific
allegations with instances against the perpetrators as against generalised
allegations. There is no doubt about the fact that importance has to be
given to the victims of domestic violence, but all the family members
and relatives ought not to be brought within the ambit of criminal
prosecution in a general and sweeping manner.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after having considered
all earlier judgments, in the case of Kahkashan Kausar & Ors. Vs State
of Bihar & Ors reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, rendered in connection
with quashing of prosecution against relatives with generalized
allegations, held that such persons ought not to go through the rigors of
the prosecution and trial as an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe
scars upon the accused. Paragraph 21 of the above-mentioned judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar (supra) is
being quoted hereunder:
"21. Therefore, upon consideration of the
relevant circumstances and in the absence of
any specific role attributed to the appellant-
accused, it would be unjust if the appellants are
forced to go through the tribulations of a trial
i.e. general and omnibus allegations cannot
manifest in a situation where the relatives of the
complainant's husband are forced to undergo
trial. It has been highlighted by this Court in
varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to
an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16948 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
9/13
upon the accused, and such an exercise must,
therefore, be discouraged.”
12. This Court would also gainfully refer to the recent
case of Dara Laxmi Narayana Vs. the State of Telangana (2025) 3
SCC 735 wherein the Hon'ble Apex has made it clear that family
members of the husband of the informant ought not to be unnecessarily
roped into criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord. It
was further held that in a case where the allegations are totally bereft of
specific accusations particularly in the background that the relatives are
even staying separately from the informant and her husband, allowing
such malicious and motivated prosecution to continue would amount to
an abuse of the process of the court. The above-mentioned judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been noticed and reiterated
in the recent case of Mange Ram Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
(2025) INSC 962 to hold that continuation of the criminal proceedings
against family members, especially in the absence of specific and
proximate allegations, serves no legitimate purpose and in appropriate
cases the power to quash such proceedings is essential to uphold
fairness and bring about a quietus to personal disputes.
13. The adverse effects of criminalizing of domestic
disputes without specific allegations to support the same have also been
very recently considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Geddam Jhansi & Anr. Vs. State of Telangana & Anr. reported in 2025
SCC Online SC 263 where their lordships have also noticed a growing
tendency to implicate other members of the family who are not
connected with the allegation of harassment and torture and a further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16948 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
10/13
tendency to exaggerate allegations giving them a criminal colour.
Paragraphs 31, 32 and 39 of the above-mentioned case of Geddam
Jhansi (supra) are being quoted hereunder:-
"31. Invoking criminal process is a serious
matter with penal consequences involving
coercive measures, which can be permitted only
when specific act(s) which constitute offences
punishable under the Penal Code or any other
penal statute are alleged or attributed to the
accused and a prima facie case is made out. It
applies with equal force when criminal laws are
invoked in domestic disputes. Criminalising
domestic disputes without specific allegations
and credible materials to support the same may
have disastrous consequences for the institution
of family, which is built on the premise of love,
affection, cordiality and mutual trust. Institution
of family constitutes the core of human society.
Domestic relationships, such as those between
family members, are guided by deeply ingrained
social values and cultural expectations. These
relationships are often viewed as sacred,
demanding a higher level of respect,
commitment, and emotional investment
compared to other social or professional
associations. For the aforesaid reason,
preservation of family relationship has always
been emphasised upon. Thus, when family
relationships are sought to be brought within
the ambit of criminal proceedings rupturing the
family bond, courts should be circumspect and
judicious, and should allow invocation of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16948 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
11/13
criminal process only when there are specific
allegations with supporting materials which
clearly constitute criminal offences.
32. We have to keep in mind that in the context
of matrimonial disputes, emotions run high, and
as such in the complaints filed alleging
harassment or domestic violence, there may be
a tendency to implicate other members of the
family who do not come to the rescue of the
complainant or remain mute spectators to any
alleged incident of harassment, which in our
view cannot by itself constitute a criminal act
without there being specific acts attributed to
them. Further, when tempers run high and
relationships turn bitter, there is also a
propensity to exaggerate the allegations, which
does not necessarily mean that such domestic
disputes should be given the colour of
criminality.
39. Under these circumstances, for the reasons
discussed above, we are satisfied that the
appellants have been able to make out a case
for interference in these proceedings qua the
present appellants as in our opinion no prima
facie case has been made out against the
appellants to continue with the criminal
proceedings against them and allowing these to
continue would amount to abuse of the process
of the law."
14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the abovementioned case
has also held that every case of domestic violence will depend on the
peculiar facts of the said case. In the present case, the thirteen years
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16948 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
12/13
delay in filing the FIR as against allegation of torture meted out soon
after marriage, makes it suspicious, pointing out towards the same being
filed for extraneous reasons. Moreover absurd allegations pertaining to
objectionable character of petitioners, ever mother-in-law, would be far
from constituting an offence u/s 498A IPC. Further, allegations of
demand of certain articles, after several years of marriage, also appears
to be suspect. This court also notices the timing of filing the present
case, which was barely four days after death of the informant’s husband
and the fact that while the petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 16942/2023 have
been residing separately since long, the petitioners of Cr. Misc. No.
19092/2023 are extremely old and ailing persons, father-in-law even
bed-ridden on account of age and paralysis. The other offences of theft,
hurt and wrongful restraint is also not made out in the backdrop of the
delay and the informant’s own admission of staying at her parental
house at Munger where she lodged the case with absurd apprehension
that her children would have been administered poison by her mother-
in-law.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Salib @
Shalu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2023 (20)
SCC 194 has held that it is not enough to look into averments made in
F.I.R./ Complaint as they could be result of good drafting, but the Court
owes a duty to look into attending circumstances in cases involving
issues of wreaking vengeance. Similar view has been reiterated in the
case of Iqbal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in
(2023) 8 SCC 734, where the grounds of challenge related to frivolous/
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16948 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
13/13
vexatious proceedings.
16. Considering the case in its entirety, which is replete
with absurdity of allegations including the general and sweeping nature
of the allegations made in the F.I.R. as also non-pointing of materials in
the order taking cognizance resulting in finding of prima facie case and
also keeping the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
consideration, this court is of the view that continuance of such
vexatious criminal proceedings against the present petitioners would
amount to abuse of the process of law and cause grave miscarriage of
justice, as such, the order dated 14.09.2020 passed by the Court of
S.D.J.M., Munger in connection with Kasimbazar P.S. Case No. 160 of
2020 whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners, and
any prosecution arising therefrom, stands quashed. It goes without
saying that other alternative remedies with regard to share in the
property etc. are always open for contest.
17. Accordingly, both the applications being Cr. Misc.
No. 16948 of 2023 and Cr. Misc. No. 19092 of 2023 stand allowed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Vashudha/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 10.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…