Patna High Court

Md. Ashfaque @ Ashfaque Alam and OrsversusState Of Bihar and Anr

Decided: 1 May 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

Holding

The order of cognizance is quashed as the allegations are vague, do not establish a prima facie case, and the proceedings would be an abuse of process.

Summary

The petitioners, who are the parents‑in‑law and a sister‑in‑law of the complainant, were taken into cognizance by a Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act based on a FIR alleging dowry demand and cruelty. The petitioners filed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quash of the order, contending that the FIR contains only vague, omnibus allegations without any specific act, date or role attributed to them. The State opposed, arguing that a prima facie case exists and detailed evidence appraisal is not required at the stage of cognizance. The High Court examined the scope of its inherent jurisdiction, relying on Supreme Court precedents that over‑implication in matrimonial disputes and vague allegations warrant intervention. Finding that the allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences and that proceeding would amount to abuse of process, the Court quashed the order of cognizance and set aside the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

Issues considered

Whether the order of cognizance under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners.
Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the judicial process.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 498A

Subjects

Section 498A
Dowry Prohibition Act
Section 482 CrPC
quash of criminal proceedings
over‑implication
matrimonial dispute
abuse of process

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22171 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-292 Year-2016 Thana- SIKARPUR District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Md. Ashfaque @ Ashfaque Alam, Son of late Dasrath Mian
2. Akhatari Khatoon, W/o Ashfaque @ Ashfaque Aka. Both Resident of
Mohalla- Malikana Road Masaurhi, P.S. Masaurhi, District- Patna.
3. Mahjabi, W/o Md. Imteyaz, Resident of Mohalla- Kamalpura , P.S.
Bundelkhand, District- Nawada.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sabanam Parbin, D/o Salauddin Resident of Mohalla- Shanti Nagar, Hardiya
Chauk, P.S. Sikarpur, District- West Champaran.

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Chandra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER

10 01-05-2026 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 for

quashing the order dated 08.02.2018 passed by learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah (hereinafter

referred to as ‘Magistrate’) in connection with Sikarpur P.S.

Case No.292 of 2016, wherein the learned Magistrate took

cognizance of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 against the present petitioners, who are
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22171 of 2018(10) dt.01-05-2026
2/12

the in-laws of the O.P. No.2, and also against other accused

persons.

3. The factual matrix giving rise to the present

application is that the informant (O.P. No.2), Sabanam Praveen,

was married to Md. Shoaib in the year 2009 according to

Muslim rites and customs. It is alleged that at the time of

marriage, sufficient dowry in the form of cash and household

articles was given by the informant’s family. After the marriage,

the informant (O.P. No.2) went to her matrimonial home, where,

after some time, the accused persons allegedly started

demanding a car as additional dowry. Upon non-fulfilment of

the said demand, the informant (O.P. No.2) was allegedly

subjected to cruelty and assault. It is further alleged that despite

the birth of two children from the wedlock, the demand of

dowry and harassment continued, and in the year 2015, the

informant (O.P. No.2) was allegedly driven out of her

matrimonial home with threats to her life. On the basis of the

said allegations, the informant (O.P. No.2) instituted Sikarpur

P.S. Case No.292 of 2016 for the offences under Section 498A

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under

Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Upon

investigation, the police submitted the chargesheet.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22171 of 2018(10) dt.01-05-2026
3/12

4. Upon perusal of the materials available on record,

the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under

Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as

well as under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

against five accused persons including the present petitioners,

who are father-in-law (petitioner no.1), mother-in-law

(petitioner no.2) and married sister-in-law (petitioner no.3) of

the O.P. No.2, vide the impugned order dated 08.02.2018. Being

aggrieved by the said impugned order of cognizance dated

08.02.2018, the petitioners have preferred the present

application before this Court seeking quashing of the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

impugned order of cognizance has been passed in a routine and

mechanical manner without proper application of judicial mind,

and as such, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is

submitted that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. would demonstrate

that the allegations levelled against the present petitioners are

wholly general and omnibus in nature, without any specific

instance, date, or overt act being attributed to them. Learned

counsel submits that the petitioners, who are aged parents-in-

law and a married sister-in-law residing separately, have been

falsely implicated merely on account of their relationship with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22171 of 2018(10) dt.01-05-2026
4/12

the husband of the O.P. No.2. It is further submitted that such

sweeping and bald allegations do not disclose the essential

ingredients of the offences alleged, particularly under Section

498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits

that the present case is a classic instance of over-implication,

where all family members have been roped in with an

exaggerated version of facts, which has been consistently

deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel

submits that even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are taken

at their face value and accepted in entirety, no prima facie case

is made out against the present petitioners. He next submits that

in such circumstances, allowing the criminal proceeding to

continue against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the

process of the Court. It is, therefore, submitted that the case of

the petitioners squarely falls within the parameters laid down for

quashing of proceedings, and the impugned order is liable to be

set aside.

7. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

quashing and submits that the allegations made in the F.I.R.

disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners. It is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22171 of 2018(10) dt.01-05-2026
5/12

submitted that at the stage of cognizance, detailed appreciation

of evidence is not required, and therefore, the impugned order

does not warrant interference by this Court.

8. Despite proper opportunities having been granted,

no one appears on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 to contest the present

application.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

upon careful examination of the materials brought on record,

this Court proceeds to consider the issue involved in the present

application. At the outset, it is necessary to delineate the scope

of inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. It is a settled position of law that

such power is to be invoked with great caution and only in

circumstances where intervention is necessary to prevent misuse

of the judicial process or to advance the cause of justice. At this

stage, the Court is required to assess whether the allegations

made in the complaint, if accepted in their entirety, disclose the

commission of any offence, without undertaking a detailed

evaluation of the evidentiary materials.

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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22171 of 2018(10) dt.01-05-2026
6/12

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. At this stage, it is apposite to reproduce some

relevant paragraphs of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in

(2023) 16 SCC 666 with respect to the contours of the power to

quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

The Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:

“16. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22171 of 2018(10) dt.01-05-2026
7/12

Kausar v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC
599], this Court had occasion to deal with a
similar situation where the High Court had
refused [Mohd. Ikram v. State of Bihar, 2019
SCC OnLine Pat 1985] to quash an FIR
registered for various offences, including
Section 498-AIPC. 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 498-AIPC 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
acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the
accused and such an exercise ought to be
discouraged.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
19. Of more recent origin is the decision of
this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P.
[(2023) 15 SCC 488] on the legal principles
applicable apropos Section 482 CrPC.
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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22171 of 2018(10) dt.01-05-2026
8/12

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.”

12. 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22171 of 2018(10) dt.01-05-2026
9/12

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)

13. Upon a close scrutiny of the F.I.R. and the

materials available on record, it transpires that the allegations

made against the present petitioners are broadly worded and

lack the essential particulars required to constitute a prima facie

case. The O.P. No.2 has alleged demand of dowry and cruelty in

a general manner without attributing any specific overt act, date,

time, or manner of occurrence to the petitioners. The only

allegation, at best, is a vague assertion regarding demand of a

car, which too is not supported by any distinct role assigned

individually to the petitioners. Such sweeping allegations, in

absence of concrete details, fail to satisfy the basic ingredients

of the offences alleged, particularly under Section 498A of the

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

Act.

14. It further appears that the petitioner nos.1 and 2
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22171 of 2018(10) dt.01-05-2026
10/12

are aged parents-in-law and petitioner no.3 is a married sister-

in-law, who would ordinarily be residing separately, and there is

nothing on record to indicate their direct involvement in the

alleged acts. The manner in which all family members have

been implicated reflects a tendency of over-implication, which

has been consistently discouraged in matrimonial disputes. In

the absence of any specific and credible allegation

demonstrating active participation of these petitioners, the

continuation of the criminal proceeding against them would not

only be unjustified but would also amount to misuse of the

process of law.

15. At this juncture, it is pertinent to advert to the

settled principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction

as enunciated 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,

wherein illustrative categories have been delineated for

quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure. It has been, inter alia, held that where

the allegations made in the complaint or F.I.R., even if accepted

in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of any offence
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22171 of 2018(10) dt.01-05-2026
11/12

or fail to establish a prima facie case against the accused, or

where the proceedings appear to be manifestly attended with

mala fide or instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court

would be justified in exercising its inherent powers. Applying

the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this

Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioners

clearly falls within the said parameters, as the allegations

levelled against them are vague, general and omnibus in nature,

and do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences

alleged.

16. In view of the aforesaid factual analysis and the

settled legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that

the impugned order of cognizance suffers from non-application

of judicial mind, inasmuch as the learned Magistrate has failed

to examine whether the allegations, on their face value,

constitute a prima facie case against the present petitioners. The

continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners,

in the absence of specific and substantiated allegations, would

amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and is, therefore,

not sustainable in the eye of law.

17. Accordingly, the impugned order dated

08.02.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22171 of 2018(10) dt.01-05-2026
12/12

West Champaran at Bettiah in connection with Sikarpur P.S.

Case No.292 of 2016, so far as it relates to the present

petitioners, is hereby quashed. Resultantly, the entire criminal

proceeding arising out of the aforesaid case, against these

petitioners, stands set aside.

18. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application

is, accordingly, allowed.

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

Court concerned forthwith for needful compliance.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…