Patna High Court
VIJAY SHANKAR DUBEYversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
The High Court quashed the order taking cognizance as the complaint failed to make specific, substantiated allegations against the petitioners and amounted to a frivolous proceeding.
Summary
The petitioners, who are the in‑laws of the complainant, sought quashing of the order dated 16‑08‑2022 that took cognizance of a complaint alleging dowry demand, torture and attempted murder under Sections 498A, 307 IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners contended that the allegations were vague, lacked objective evidence and were essentially directed against the husband, not the in‑laws. The Court examined precedents emphasizing that omnibus allegations against a husband’s relatives are often misused and that the High Court must scrutinise the FIR/complaint beyond its bare averments to detect frivolous or vexatious proceedings. Relying on Supreme Court judgments (e.g., Abhishek v. State of MP, Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar) and the principles under Section 482 CrPC and Article 226, the Court held that the complaint did not disclose specific allegations against the petitioners. Consequently, the order taking cognizance was quashed as the proceedings were deemed manifestly frivolous and without merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations in the complaint constitute a prima facie case against the petitioners under Sections 498A, 307 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the High Court can quash the order taking cognizance under its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC/Article 226 when the complaint is deemed frivolous or vexatious.
- Whether the allegations are mere omnibus statements lacking specific factual support against the in‑laws.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. 226
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 498A
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- Section 498A IPC
- quashing criminal proceedings
- inherent powers of court
- matrimonial dispute
- frivolous complaint
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20906 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-875 Year-2022 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
1. VIJAY SHANKAR DUBEY S/o Late Chandra Shekhar Dubey Resident of
4M/116, Bahadurpur, Housing Colony, Patna-26
2. ANJANA DUBEY W/o Sri Vijay Shankar Dubey Resident of 4M/116,
Bahadurpur, Housing Colony, Patna-26
3. KUMAR SHIVAM S/o Sri Vijay Shankar dubey Resident of 4M/116,
Bahadurpur, Housing Colony, Patna-26
4. BHANU SHREE D/o Sri Vijay Shankar Dubey Resident of 4M/116,
Bahadurpur, Housing Colony, Patna-26
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Saumya Dwevedi D/O- Piyush Kumar Dwevedi at present resident of Asha
Village, chinni(Sugar) Mill Road,Bihta, P.S.-Bihta, district- Patna, R/O
village- Datiyana, P.S.-Vikram, district- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kunal Tiwary, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Saurav Karn, Advocate
: Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 25-06-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
learned counsel for the opposite parties.
2. The instant petition has been filed on behalf of the
petitioners for quashing the order taking cognizance dated
16.08.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in
Complaint Case No. 875(C) of 2022 whereby cognizance has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20906 of 2023 dt.25-06-2026
2/7
taken for the offences punishable under Section 498(A), 307 of the
Indian Penal Code and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The allegation is of demand of dowry and torture. The
allegation as pointed out by learned counsel for the opposite party
against these petitioners who are father-in-law, mother-in-law,
brother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively is that on the next
date of marriage they objected to the size of plate and started
throwing away the goods. Further allegation is that the mother-in-
law forced her to eat expiry biscuit. Under force she consumed it
and got ill but she was not taken to hospital. Thereafter, on
08.01.2022 all the accused persons brought kerosene in the
courtyard and they were indicating amongst themselves and asking
the husband to kill her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
thrust of allegation is against the husband who is responsible for
the well being of the lady in the matrimonial home. Moreover, the
allegations are without any objective support. The frustration with
regard to demand of dowry and forcing the lady to eat expiry
biscuits are merely oral allegation with no objective support.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the
observation given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhishek vs.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20906 of 2023 dt.25-06-2026
3/7
State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [2023 SCC Online SC
1083] has held at para 13, 14, 15 and 16 that:-
“(13) Instances of a husband's family
members filing a petition to quash criminal
proceedings launched against them by his wife in the
midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor
of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on this
score. We may now take note of some decisions of
particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar
alias Sonam v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this
Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation
where the High Court had refused to quash a FIR
registered for various offences, including Section 498A
IPC. Noting that the foremost issue that required
determination was whether allegations made against
the in-laws were general omnibus allegations which
would be liable to be quashed, this Court referred to
earlier decisions wherein concern was expressed over
the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased
tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in
matrimonial disputes. This Court observed that false
Implications by way of general omnibus allegations
made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left
unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of
law. On the facts of that case, it was found that no
specific allegations were made against the in-laws by
the wife and it was held that allowing their prosecution
in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws
would result in an abuse of the process of law. It was
also noted that a criminal trial, leading to an eventual
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20906 of 2023 dt.25-06-2026
4/7
acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the accused
and such an exercise ought to be discouraged.
14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand
[(2010) 7 SCC 667], this Court noted that the tendency
to implicate the husband and all his immediate
relations is also not uncommon in complaints filed
under Section 498A IPC. It was observed that the
Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in
dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic
realities into consideration while dealing with
matrimonial cases, as allegations of harassment by
husband's close relations, who were living in different
cities and never visited or rarely visited the place
where the complainant resided, would add an entirely
different complexion and such allegations would have
to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.
15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti
[(2009) 10 SCC 184), this Court observed that the
mere mention of statutory provisions and the language
thereof, for lodging a complaint, is not the 'be all and
end all of the matter, as what is required to be brought
to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the
offence committed by each and every accused and the
role played by each and every accused in the
commission of that offence. These observations were
made in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving
Section 498A IPC.
16. Of more recent origin is the decision of
this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. (Criminal
Appeal No. 2341 of 2023, decided on 08.08.2023) on
the legal principles applicable apropos Section 482
Cr.P.C. Therein, it was observed that when an accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20906 of 2023 dt.25-06-2026
5/7
comes before the High Court, invoking either the
inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. 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.”
6. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 states that these
constitute prima facie allegation. In the case of Salib v. State of
U.P., reported in (2023) 20 SCC 194, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Para 26 has dealt with such a situation while expanding the
scope of quashing. It very clearly says that a FIR or a complaint
can be a well drafted to give an impression of a prima facie case
but the Court has the duty to read between the lines and attending
circumstances to see as to whether a prima facie case is being
made out. Para 26 of the judgment is quoted hereunder:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20906 of 2023 dt.25-06-2026
6/7
“26. At this stage, we would like to observe
something important. Whenever an accused comes
before the Court invoking either the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrPC) or 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 for wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes
a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more
closely. We say so because once the complainant
decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior
motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc. then he
would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well
drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The
complainant would ensure that the averments made in
the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the
necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence.
Therefore, it will not be just 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. 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 try to
read in between the lines. The Court while exercising
its jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC or Article 226
of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the
stage of a case but is empowered to take into account
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20906 of 2023 dt.25-06-2026
7/7
the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the
materials collected in the course of investigation. Take
for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been
registered over a period of time. It is in the background
of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs
assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of
wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge
as alleged.”
7. In the backdrop of allegations as well as large number
of judgments of Supreme Court where the practice of implicating
in-laws in matrimonial litigation has been deprecated, this
application stands allow.
8. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated
16.08.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur,
Patna in Complaint Case No. 875(C) of 2022 is hereby quashed, so
far as the petitioners are concerned.
(Ansul, J)
amitkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 26.06.2026
Transmission Date 26.06.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.