Patna High Court
Bimal Kishor Jha and AnrversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The High Court held that the complaint did not disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners and therefore quashed the order of cognizance under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
Summary
The petitioners, aged father‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law, were charged under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for alleged cruelty and dowry demand against their daughter‑in‑law, Dolly Devi. They sought quash of the magistrate’s order taking cognizance of the offences, arguing that the complaint was vague, omnibus and motivated by marital discord, and that no specific acts were attributed to them. The State and the complainant contended that a prima facie case existed and that the magistrate was correct in taking cognizance. The High Court examined Supreme Court precedents on matrimonial disputes and held that the allegations against the petitioners were not specific enough to satisfy the statutory elements of the offences. Consequently, the Court found no prima facie case against the petitioners and quashed the order of cognizance as an abuse of process. The application for quashing was allowed, limiting the observation to the petitioners only.
Issues considered
- Whether the complaint against the petitioners discloses a prima facie case under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings at the threshold when allegations are vague and possibly motivated by matrimonial discord.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 202, 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 498A
Subjects
- Section 498A
- dowry harassment
- quashing of criminal proceedings
- matrimonial dispute
- abuse of process
- inherent jurisdiction
- Section 482 CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24153 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-263 Year-2016 Thana- MADHEPURA COMPALINT CASE
District- Madhepura
======================================================
1. Bimal Kishor Jha S/o Late Ayodhya Nath Jha,
2. Sushila Devi W/o Bimal Kishor Jha, Both resident of Vill.- Fuldovi, P.S.-
Falka , District- Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Dolly Devi W/o Hare Krishna @ Hare Krishan Bastsa D/o Late Sunder Kant
Mishra, R/o Vill.- Rampur Khora, P.S.- Uda Kishunganj, District-
Madhepura.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimal Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh 1, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Jibendra Mishra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
9 19-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
A.P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 (O.P. No.2).
2. The present application has been filed on behalf of
the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 22.07.2017
passed in Complaint Case No.263 of 2016 by the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Udakishunganj (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Magistrate’) wherein cognizance for offences
under Section 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’) and under Section 4 of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24153 of 2018(9) dt.19-02-2026
2/16
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has been taken against the
petitioners, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the O.P.
No.2, and also against husband of O.P. No.2.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the
marriage of complainant, Dolly Devi (O.P. No. 2) was
solemnized with Hare Krishan Batsa (son of the petitioners
herein) on 22.04.2015. At the time of marriage and bidai, her
parents had provided customary gifts and articles. It is alleged
that after residing in her matrimonial home for about two
months without any dispute, the accused persons, including her
husband and the petitioners (father-in-law and mother-in-law),
began subjecting her to cruelty and harassment in connection
with a demand for a Nano car and a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-.
Upon expressing her inability to fulfil the said demand through
her parental family, she was allegedly abused and assaulted. The
O.P. No.2 further alleged that her family members, when
informed, visited her matrimonial home but were also subjected
to assault. Moreover, her belongings were forcibly taken away,
her signatures were obtained on blank stamp papers under
threat, and she was ultimately driven out of her matrimonial
home. Being oppressed with the aforementioned torture, O.P.
No.2 filed a complaint case before the learned Magistrate.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24153 of 2018(9) dt.19-02-2026
3/16
4. On the basis of the said allegations, the learned
Magistrate, after examination of O.P. No.2 on solemn
affirmation and inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., vide
impugned order dated 22.07.2017, took cognizance for the
offences punishable under Section 498A of the I.P.C., and under
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the three
accused persons, namely, Hare Krishan Batsa (son of the
petitioners herein), Bimal Kishor Jha (petitioner no.1) and
Sushila Devi (petitioner no.2). Petitioners, being aggrieved by
the said order of cognizance against them, have preferred this
application praying to quash the impugned order dated
22.07.2017 passed against them.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners, being the aged father-in-law and mother-in-law
of the O.P. No.2, have been falsely implicated in the present
case due to matrimonial discord between the O.P. No.2 and her
husband (co-accused). It is submitted that the allegations made
in the complaint petition are general and omnibus in nature,
lacking specific particulars as to the active role attributed to the
petitioners. Learned counsel further submitted that the
petitioners are aged about 80 years and 75 years respectively,
residing separately, and have no direct concern with the day-to-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24153 of 2018(9) dt.19-02-2026
4/16
day matrimonial affairs of the O.P. No.2 and her husband.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the
complaint has been instituted by O.P. No.2 with ulterior motive
based on concocted and fabricated story. It is submitted that
prior to the institution of the complaint case by O.P. No.2, the
husband of O.P. No. 2 had already approached the competent
court by filing a Sanha petition, bearing I.P. No. 2464 of 2015
dated 09.07.2015, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Katihar, bringing on record the alleged aggressive and unruly
behaviour of the O.P. No.2 towards her husband and in-laws.
Learned counsel submitted that the said step was taken with a
bonafide intention to safeguard the matrimonial relationship and
to place the true state of affairs before the court. It is submitted
that the filing of the said petition clearly demonstrates that the
dispute between the parties was already subsisting and that the
Complaint Case No. 263 of 2016 has been lodged subsequently
as a counterblast to the earlier proceedings initiated by the
husband (co-accused).
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the O.P. No.2 herself left the matrimonial house and subsequent
thereto the son of petitioners had filed a matrimonial suit for
restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24153 of 2018(9) dt.19-02-2026
5/16
Marriage Act wherein she did not even appear.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submits that the learned Magistrate, without proper application
of judicial mind and despite contradictions in the statements of
the inquiry witnesses, mechanically took cognizance against the
petitioners. Moreover, learned counsel put his reliance on
various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including
Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2010) 7 SCC
667; Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741; Pritam Ashok Sadaphule
and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., reported in (2015)
11 SCC 769; and Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and Anr.,
reported in (2025) 3 SCC 756 wherein it has been observed that
owing to the surge in matrimonial disputes in recent times, the
instances of false implication have markedly increased and
courts must exercise due circumspection while proceeding
against relatives specially the allegations are omnibus. It is
lastly submitted that there is no prima facie case made out
against the petitioners and thus, prayed that the impugned order
dated 22.07.2017 taking cognizance against the petitioners be
quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24153 of 2018(9) dt.19-02-2026
6/16
submits that the complaint petition discloses allegations of
cruelty and dowry demand against the accused persons
including the petitioners, and that the learned Magistrate has
rightly taken cognizance after due inquiry under Section 202 of
the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the O.P. No.2 was subjected to
continuous mental and physical harassment on account of
unlawful demand of a Nano car and Rs. 3,00,000/-, and upon
her inability to fulfil such demand, she was abused, assaulted,
and ultimately driven out of her matrimonial home. Learned
counsel further submits that the allegations are not vague or
general in nature but disclose active participation of the
petitioners in the commission of the alleged offence. It is further
submitted that the plea of false implication and counterblast, as
sought to be projected by the petitioners, is a matter of defence
which cannot be adjudicated in a petition for quashing at the
threshold stage. The filing of any Sanha petition or matrimonial
suit by the husband does not dilute the seriousness of the
allegations made in the complaint. It is submitted that at the
stage of cognizance, the Court is only required to see whether a
prima facie case is made out, and meticulous examination of
defence materials is impermissible. It is, moreover, submitted
that the stage of the case in the court concerned has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24153 of 2018(9) dt.19-02-2026
7/16
changed as the examination of witnesses before charge has
already closed vide order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the
learned Magistrate. Therefore, it is submitted that the present
application be dismissed and the criminal proceeding be allowed
to continue in accordance with law.
10. Learned A.P.P. for the State supports the
impugned order of cognizance and submits that at the stage of
taking cognizance, the Court is required to ascertain whether the
complaint and the materials collected during inquiry disclose a
prima facie case, and not to meticulously evaluate the
truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations. Learned A.P.P.
further submits that the allegations pertain to offences under
Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, which are serious in nature and relate to cruelty
and unlawful demand of dowry within the matrimonial home.
Accordingly, it is submitted that no interference is warranted at
this stage and the application for quashing the impugned Order
deserves to be dismissed.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for
petitioners, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 as well as the
learned A.P.P. appearing for the State, and upon perusal of the
materials available on record, it appears that admittedly the O.P.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24153 of 2018(9) dt.19-02-2026
8/16
No.2 was married to Hare Krishan Batsa (son of the petitioners)
on 22.04.2015 according to Hindu rites and rituals and they
started their matrimonial life. After about five months of
matrimonial cohabitation, the husband of O.P. No.2 file a Sanha
Petition bearing I.P. No. 2464 of 2015 alleging aggressive
attitude of O.P. No.2 towards her in-laws (petitioners) and her
husband (co-accused). Subsequent to which O.P. No.2 filed the
Complaint Case No.263 of 2016 on 14.09.2016 against her
husband and the petitioners along with other in-laws alleging
the aforementioned allegations, wherein the learned Magistrate
took cognizance of the offences vide the impugned order dated
22.07.2017.
12. It is pertinent to note that the Court owes a duty
to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough
scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of
truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the
sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge,
more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial
dispute.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, time and again,
has also made the stance very clear with respect to the criminal
allegations arising out of matrimonial discords. The Hon’ble
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24153 of 2018(9) dt.19-02-2026
9/16
Apex Court in Preeti Gupta (supra) has observed as under:
“32. It is a matter of common experience
that most of these complaints under Section
498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the
moment over trivial issues without proper
deliberations. We come across a large
number of such complaints which are not
even bona fide and are filed with oblique
motive. At the same time, rapid increase in
the number of genuine cases of dowry
harassment is also a matter of serious
concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have
enormous social responsibility and
obligation to ensure that the social fibre of
family life is not ruined or demolished. They
must ensure that exaggerated versions of
small incidents should not be reflected in the
criminal complaints. Majority of the
complaints are filed either on their advice or
with their concurrence. The learned
members of the Bar who belong to a noble
profession must maintain its noble traditions
and should treat every complaint under
Section 498-A as a basic human problem
and must make serious endeavour to help the
parties in arriving at an amicable resolution
of that human problem. They must discharge
their duties to the best of their abilities to
ensure that social fibre, peace and
tranquillity of the society remains intact. The
members of the Bar should also ensure that
one complaint should not lead to multiple
cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of
the complaint the implications and
consequences are not properly visualised by
the complainant that such complaint can
lead to insurmountable harassment, agony
and pain to the complainant, accused and
his close relations.
35. The ultimate object of justice is to
find out the truth and punish the guilty and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24153 of 2018(9) dt.19-02-2026
10/16
protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a
herculean task in majority of these
complaints. The tendency of implicating the
husband and all his immediate relations is
also not uncommon. At times, even after the
conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to
ascertain the real truth. 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. The
allegations of harassment of husband's close
relations who had been living in different
cities and never visited or rarely visited the
place where the complainant resided would
have an entirely different complexion. The
allegations of the complaint are required to
be scrutinised with great care and
circumspection.”
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta
Mehrotra (supra) has observed as under:
“20. Coming to the facts of this case, when
the contents of the FIR are perused, it is
apparent that there are no allegations
against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji
Mehrotra except casual reference of their
names which have been included in the FIR
but mere casual reference of the names of
the family members in a matrimonial dispute
without allegation of active involvement in
the matter would not justify taking
cognizance against them overlooking the
fact borne out of experience that there is a
tendency to involve the entire family
members of the household in the domestic
quarrel taking place in a matrimonial
dispute specially if it happens soon after the
wedding.
21. It would be relevant at this stage to
take note of an apt observation of this Court
recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao v. L.H.V.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24153 of 2018(9) dt.19-02-2026
11/16
Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3
SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] wherein
also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had
held that the High Court should have
quashed the complaint arising out of a
matrimonial dispute wherein all family
members had been roped into the
matrimonial litigation which was quashed
and set aside. Their Lordships observed
therein with which we entirely agree that :
(SCC p. 698, para 12)
‘12. There has been an outburst of
matrimonial dispute in recent times.
Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the
main purpose of which is to enable the
young couple to settle down in life and
live peacefully. But little matrimonial
skirmishes suddenly erupt which often
assume serious proportions resulting
in commission of heinous crimes in
which elders of the family are also
involved with the result that those who
could have counselled and brought
about rapprochement are rendered
helpless on their being arrayed as
accused in the criminal case. There
are many other reasons which need
not be mentioned here for not
encouraging matrimonial litigation so
that the parties may ponder over their
defaults and terminate their disputes
amicably by mutual agreement instead
of fighting it out in a court of law
where it takes years and years to
conclude and in that process the
parties lose their “young” days in
chasing their “cases” in different
courts.’
The view taken by the Judges in
this matter was that the courts would
not encourage such disputes.”
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24153 of 2018(9) dt.19-02-2026
12/16
(supra) 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 482CrPC 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)
16. Having considered the rival submissions and
upon perusal of the complaint petition, this Court finds that in
order to attract the provisions of Section 498A of the I.P.C., the
allegations must prima facie disclose “cruelty” within the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24153 of 2018(9) dt.19-02-2026
13/16
meaning of the Explanation to the said Section, namely, wilful
conduct of such nature as is likely to cause grave injury or
harassment with a view to coercing fulfilment of an unlawful
demand. Similarly, for constituting an offence under Section 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, there must be a specific and
identifiable demand of dowry attributable to the accused. In the
present case, though the complaint contains allegations of
demand of a Nano car and Rs. 3,00,000/- and of torture by the
accused persons including the petitioners, the allegations so far
as these petitioners, who are the aged father-in-law and mother-
in-law, are concerned, appear to be general and omnibus in
nature without specific attribution of overt acts or distinct role
demonstrating active participation in the alleged cruelty or
dowry demand. The complaint attributes the demand
collectively to all accused persons without detailing the
particular conduct of the petitioners or the circumstances in
which such demand was allegedly made by them. The inquiry
statements also do not assign any specific act to the petitioners
beyond reiteration of general allegations. Thus, in absence of
specific material disclosing the essential statutory ingredients
against the petitioners, it can be said that a prima facie case
under Section 498A of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24153 of 2018(9) dt.19-02-2026
14/16
Prohibition Act is not made out against them.
17. Now, the law with respect to quashing of
criminal proceeding is now well settled that while considering a
prayer to quash the criminal complaint and the consequential
proceedings at the threshold, the Court is required to examine
whether the allegations made in the complaint along with
materials in support thereof make out a prima facie case to
proceed against the accused or not. The reference to the same
has been made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments
including 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.
18. Applying the aforesaid legal principles to the
facts of the present case, this Court finds that the continuation of
the criminal proceeding against the present petitioners would
amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. The materials
available on record do not disclose any specific or prima facie
incriminating act attributable to these petitioners so as to satisfy
the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. The allegations
are sweeping in nature and appear to have been made in a
mechanical manner against all family members, without
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24153 of 2018(9) dt.19-02-2026
15/16
delineating their individual roles. The petitioners are aged in-
laws, residing separately, and no material has been brought on
record to demonstrate their direct involvement in the alleged
demand or acts of cruelty. Moreover, the background
circumstances, including prior matrimonial discord and
initiation of proceedings by the husband, lend support to the
contention that the present prosecution is a manifestation of
strained marital relations rather than a case supported by
concrete and specific allegations against the petitioners. In such
circumstances, permitting the prosecution to proceed against
them would not subserve the ends of justice and would result in
unnecessary harassment. Hence, the impugned order, insofar as
it relates to the present petitioners, is liable to be set aside.
19. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered
view that the impugned order dated 22.07.2017, passed by the
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Udakishunganj, in
Complaint Case No. 263 of 2016, taking cognizance under
Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act against the petitioners cannot be sustained in the
eye of law. The criminal proceeding, so far as it relates to these
petitioners, is hereby quashed.
20. The present application is, accordingly,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24153 of 2018(9) dt.19-02-2026
16/16
allowed.
21. It is further clarified that the observations made
hereinabove are confined to the adjudication of the present
application for quashing and shall not be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case against the other accused
person and the learned Trial Court shall proceed independently
and uninfluenced by any observation made in this order, in
accordance with law. The application stands allowed to the
extent indicated above.
22. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
learned Trial Court forthwith.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
ritik/-
U T
Checking your session…