Patna High Court
Meera DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The Court held that the allegations were vague and failed to disclose a prima facie case, and therefore quashed the order of cognizance and the criminal proceeding against the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Meera Devi, mother‑in‑law of complainant Kumari Sujata, sought quash of a magistrate's order taking cognizance of offences under IPC §§498A, 323, 379 (with §34) and Dowry Prohibition Act §4. The complaint alleged dowry demands and cruelty but made only vague, omnibus accusations against the petitioner, who was residing separately from the complainant at the relevant time. The petitioner argued that the complaint was filed as a retaliatory measure in a pending divorce suit and that similar co‑accused had earlier been granted relief. The High Court, invoking its inherent power under CrPC §482 and Supreme Court precedents, held that the allegations did not disclose a prima facie case and that proceeding would amount to abuse of process. Consequently, the order of cognizance against the petitioner was set aside and the criminal proceedings against her were quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a prima facie case of offences under IPC §§498A, 323, 379 and Dowry Prohibition Act §4 against the petitioner.
- Whether continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner would constitute an abuse of process warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction under CrPC §482.
- Whether the magistrate's order taking cognizance of the offences should be quashed.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 379, 498A
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- Section 498A
- abuse of process
- inherent jurisdiction
- quash order
- matrimonial dispute
- Section 482 CrPC
- vague allegations
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20856 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1883 Year-2013 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE
District- Begusarai
======================================================
Meera Devi,W/o Sri Ramakant Singh R/o Village- Bharaul, P.S.- Bachhwara,
District- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kumari Sujata, W/o Basant Kumar, D/o Dr. Ram Bilash Singh, R/o Village-
Musadpur, P.S.- Barauni, District- Begusarai.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sarvottam Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Asmita Bharti, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
12 05-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the O.P. No.2 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 for
quashing the order dated 13.02.2014 passed by the Court of
learned S.D.J.M., Begusarai (hereinafter referred to as
‘Magistrate’) in connection with Complaint Case No.1883 (C)
of 2013, wherein the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
offence under Sections 498A, 323 and 379 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the present petitioner, who
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20856 of 2018(12) dt.05-05-2026
2/10
is mother-in-law of the O.P. No.2, and six other accused
persons.
3. Factual matrix giving rise to the present case is that
O.P. No.2/complainant filed Complaint Case No.1883 (C) of
2013, wherein it is stated that the marriage between the
complainant (Kumari Sujata) and the son of the petitioner
herein, namely Basant Kumar (co-accused), was solemnized on
15.04.2012 according to Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged
that at the time of marriage substantial dowry in the form of
cash, car, ornaments and other articles was given, but soon after
the marriage, the accused persons, including the present
petitioner (who is the mother-in-law of O.P. No.2/complainant),
started demanding additional dowry and subjected the
complainant to physical and mental cruelty. When she failed to
gratify their demands, she was ousted from her matrimonial
home. Subsequently, the complainant filed the aforesaid
complaint case.
4. Upon perusal of the materials available on record,
including the complaint petition, solemn affirmation of the
complainant (O.P. No.2) and the statement of witness recorded
during inquiry, the learned Magistrate, vide order dated
13.02.2014, took cognizance of the offences under Sections
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20856 of 2018(12) dt.05-05-2026
3/10
498A, 323 and 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against
all the accused persons including the present petitioners. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order passed by the
learned Magistrate, the petitioner, who is mother-in-law of the
complainant (O.P. No.2), has approached this Court seeking
quashing of the said impugned order of cognizance.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
entire prosecution, as initiated by the complaint case, is nothing
but an abuse of the process of the Court and has been
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to harass the
petitioner, who is the aged mother-in-law of the O.P. No.2. It is
submitted that the allegations made in the complaint petition are
wholly vague, general and omnibus in nature, without
attributing any specific overt act to the petitioner. Learned
counsel submits that the O.P. No.2 admittedly resided with her
husband at Delhi during the relevant period, and the petitioner
was living separately, thus rendering the allegations against the
petitioner inherently improbable. He further submits that the
learned Magistrate has mechanically taken cognizance without
proper application of judicial mind and in absence of prima
facie materials against the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20856 of 2018(12) dt.05-05-2026
4/10
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present complaint has been filed as a counterblast to the
matrimonial (divorce) case instituted by the husband of the O.P.
No.2 prior to filing of the complaint, which clearly indicates
mala fide intention. Learned counsel also submits that the
materials on record, including official documents, demonstrate
that the husband was posted outside Begusarai during the
alleged period, thereby falsifying the version of the O.P. No.2. It
is submitted that continuation of the criminal proceeding against
the petitioner, in absence of any specific and credible allegation,
would amount to misuse of the criminal justice system. Learned
counsel further submits that this Court vide order dated
24.11.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No.17715 of 2016 (Ratna
Kumari @ Ratna & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors.) and also
vide order dated 04.12.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 4312 of
2015 (Harishankar Kunwar & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors.),
has quashed the impugned order of cognizance dated
13.02.2014 against other similarly situated co-accused persons.
Hence, learned counsel prays that this Court, in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction, quash the impugned order of cognizance
as well as the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 concedes that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20856 of 2018(12) dt.05-05-2026
5/10
petitioner is the mother-in-law of the O.P. No.2 (complainant)
and father-in-law of the O.P. No.2 has already died on
05.02.2024 during the proceeding of this case. He further
concedes that the entire proceeding including the order of
cognizance dated 13.02.2014 passed by the learned Magistrate
in Complaint Case No.1883 (C) of 2013 has been set aside vide
order dated 24.11.2024 and 04.12.2017 by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No.17715 of 2016 and Cr.
Misc. No. 4312 of 2015 respectively, against other similarly
situated co-accused.
8. Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and learned APP for
the State submit that in the facts and circumstances of this case,
appropriate order may be passed in the interest of justice.
9. This Court has carefully considered the
submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the
materials available on record. It is well settled that the inherent
power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is
to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and only in
cases where the allegations made in the complaint, even if taken
at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not disclose
the commission of any offence or where the continuation of the
criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20856 of 2018(12) dt.05-05-2026
6/10
the Court. The Court is not required to embark upon a
meticulous appreciation of evidence or adjudicate disputed
questions of fact at this stage.
10. It is equally well settled that in cases arising out of
matrimonial disputes, the tendency to implicate all family
members of the husband without specific and distinct
allegations has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in a catena of decisions. The Hon’ble Apex Court has
consistently held that vague and omnibus allegations, without
any prima facie material indicating active involvement, would
not justify the continuation of criminal proceedings against such
relatives. However, it is equally settled that where the
allegations are inherently improbable, absurd, or do not disclose
the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, or where the
proceeding appears to be manifestly attended with mala fide and
instituted with ulterior motive, the Court would be justified in
exercising its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the
process of law.
11. 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20856 of 2018(12) dt.05-05-2026
7/10
[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 482CrPC 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
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)
12. Upon perusal of the allegations made in the
complaint petition, this Court finds that the accusations against
the present petitioner, who is the mother-in-law of the
complainant (O.P. No.2), are general and omnibus in nature. No
specific date, time or particular overt act has been attributed to
them so as to prima facie constitute the offences alleged. The
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20856 of 2018(12) dt.05-05-2026
8/10
complaint primarily contains sweeping statements regarding
demand of dowry and cruelty without delineating the individual
role of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the
complainant was residing with her husband at Delhi for a
considerable period after marriage, which renders the direct
involvement of the petitioner, who was residing separately,
doubtful.
13. It further appears from the materials brought on
record that the matrimonial relationship between the
complainant (O.P. No.2) and her husband had already become
strained, and a matrimonial (divorce) proceeding had been
instituted by the husband prior to the filing of the present
complaint case. The complaint has been filed subsequent to
receipt of notice in the said matrimonial proceeding, which
lends credence to the submission of the petitioner that the
present criminal case may have been instituted as a counterblast.
14. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, and considering the nature of allegations made
against the petitioner, this Court finds that the essential
ingredients of the offences alleged are not clearly made out
against her from the complaint petition itself. The continuation
of the criminal proceeding, in absence of specific and credible
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20856 of 2018(12) dt.05-05-2026
9/10
allegations, would result in unnecessary harassment of the
petitioner and would amount to abuse of the process of the
Court.
15. In such circumstances, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the present case falls within the
parameters 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 and Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947,
particularly the category where the allegations made in the
complaint, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose a
prima facie case against the accused or are so vague and
omnibus that no prudent person can reach a just conclusion for
proceeding against them. Accordingly, the continuation of the
criminal proceeding against the present petitioner would amount
to an abuse of the process of the Court and warrants interference
in exercise of inherent powers to meet the ends of justice.
16. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
13.02.2014 passed by the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Begusarai
in Complaint Case No. 1883 (C) of 2013, so far as it relates to
the present petitioner, is hereby set aside.
17. Resultantly, the entire criminal proceeding arising
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20856 of 2018(12) dt.05-05-2026
10/10
out of the aforesaid complaint case, as against the petitioner,
stands quashed.
18. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application,
accordingly stands allowed.
19. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Court concerned forthwith for needful compliance.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.