Patna High Court

Kunti Devi and OrsversusState Of Bihar and Anr

Decided: 21 April 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

Holding

The High Court held that the allegations against the petitioners are vague and omnibus, lacking specific acts, and therefore the order taking cognizance is quashed as an abuse of process.

Summary

The complainant, Bindu Devi, alleged that her husband and his relatives demanded a motorcycle and Rs.2,00,000 as dowry, subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty, assault, miscarriage, and ouster from her matrimonial home. The trial court took cognizance of offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and issued summons against the husband’s relatives (the petitioners). The petitioners filed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking quash of the order, contending that the allegations against them were vague, omnibus and lacked specific acts. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that the complaint did not disclose any particular act by the in‑laws and that proceeding against them would be an abuse of process. Consequently, the order taking cognizance against the petitioners was quashed and the criminal proceedings against them were set aside.

Issues considered

Whether the order taking cognizance of the petitioners under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 Dowry Act warrants interference under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the allegations against the husband’s relatives are specific enough to constitute a prima facie case.
Whether continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of law.

Legislation cited

Subjects

dowry
cruelty
Section 498-A
abuse of process
quashing
in‑laws
mariage dispute
Section 482
criminal proceeding

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26630 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1996 Year-2016 Thana- WEST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT
District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Kunti Devi, W/o Sri Yadolal Sah Keshari,
2. Yadolal Sah Keshari @ Yadav lal Sah, S/o Late Raghunath Sah,
3. Shyamsundar Keshari, S/o Sri Yadolal Sah Keshari,
4. Brijkishore Keshari @ Nanhaki Keshari, S/o Sri Yadolal Sah Keshari,
5. Prem Chandra Keshari, W/o Late Raghunath Sah,
6. Hiralal Keshari, S/o Late Raghunath Sah, All Residents of Vill.- Bhaisalotan
Pipra Kothi, P.S.- Balmikinagar, District- West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Bindu Devi, W/o Munna Prasad Keshari D/o Harendra Prasad Keshari, R/o
Chanpatia Bin Tola, Dhath Chowk, Ward No. 3, P.S.- Chanpatia, District-
West Champaran.

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vinod Shankar Modi, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER

10 21-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as

learned APP for the State.

2. This application has been filed for quashing of the

order dated 30.05.2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned

Order’) passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran (hereinafter referred to as

‘Trial Court’) in Complaint Case No. 1996-C of 2016 (Trial No.

1208 of 2017), whereby cognizance has been taken and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26630 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
2/11

summons have been issued against the accused persons

including the present petitioners to face trial for the offences

punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the

complainant (O.P. No.2) was married to Munna Prasad Keshari

on 06.05.2013 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, and

sufficient cash, gold ornaments and other articles as gifts were

given by her father as per his capacity. O.P. No.2 alleged that

after a month of marriage, her husband was appointed on the

post of government teacher, thereafter, the accused persons,

including the husband and his family members (petitioners

herein), started subjecting the O.P. No.2 to cruelty in connection

with demand of a Bullet motorcycle and a sum of Rs.

2,00,000/-. Upon her failure to fulfill the said demand due to the

financial incapacity of her parental family, she was allegedly

subjected to physical and mental torture and was threatened that

her husband would contract a second marriage. O.P. No.2 has

further alleged that when her father and brother intervened, she

was driven out of her matrimonial home. Subsequently, her

father arranged Rs. 50,000/- and paid the same to the accused

persons, whereafter she was taken back, but the alleged acts of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26630 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
3/11

cruelty continued. It is further alleged that she suffered

miscarriage, due to the assault of accused person including

petitioners and ultimately was ousted from matrimonial home

after snatching her stridhan. It is further the case of the

prosecution that on 11.11.2016, the accused persons came to her

parental house and attempted to coerce her into signing blank

papers with the intention of facilitating her husband’s second

marriage. On the basis of these allegations, O.P. No.2 has

lodged a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

bettiah, which was transferred to the file of the learned Trial

Court.

4. Upon perusal of the complaint petition, statement

of the O.P. No.2 on solemn affirmation and the statements of

three enquiry witnesses examined in support of the complaint,

the learned Trial Court found prima facie case and accordingly

took cognizance of the offences under Section 498-A of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

against the accused persons including the petitioners herein and

issued summons to face trial vide the impugned order dated

30.05.2017. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have preferred

the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application for quashing of

the same.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26630 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
4/11

5. Petitioner No.1 is the mother in law, petitioner No.2

in father in law, petitioner No.3 is the Bhaisur (elder brother in-

Law), petitioner No. 4 is brother in law and petitioner No. 5 and

6 are uncle in Law of the O.P. No.2.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners submits that the impugned order is wholly illegal,

arbitrary and amounts to abuse of the process of the Court.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner No.1 and

petitioner No.2 are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of O.P.

No.2 respectively and other petitioners are also relatives of the

husband of O.P. No.2. They have been falsely implicated in the

present case only on the basis of general, vague and omnibus

allegations without there being any specific overt act attributed

to them. He further submitted that even from a bare perusal of

the complaint petition as well as the statements recorded during

enquiry, the specific allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty

are primarily against the husband, and the entire family has been

roped in with an oblique motive.

7. Learned counsel of Petitioners further submits that

the dispute arises out of normal matrimonial discord between

the O.P. No.2 and her husband, has been given a criminal colour,

and continuation of the criminal proceeding against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26630 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
5/11

petitioners would be nothing but misuse of the process of law.

Learned counsel further submits that the provisions of Section

498-A Indian Penal Code are often misused to harass the

relatives of the husband, and in the absence of any specific

allegation, the petitioners ought not to be compelled to face the

rigours of criminal trial. It is thus submitted that the impugned

order taking cognizance as well as the entire criminal

proceeding, so far as it relates to the petitioners, be quashed in

exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No.2

submits that the impugned order has been passed after due

application of judicial mind and upon consideration of the

materials available on record. Learned counsel further submits

that the complaint petition, the statement of the O.P. No.2 on

solemn affirmation, as well as the statements of the enquiry

witnesses, clearly disclose a prima facie case against all the

accused persons including the petitioners herein.

9. Learned counsel of O.P. No.2 further submits that

the allegations made in the complaint petition specifically

disclose that O.P. No.2 was subjected to continuous physical and

mental cruelty in connection with demand of dowry, and all the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26630 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
6/11

accused persons, being members of the matrimonial family,

actively participated in such acts. The nature of allegations,

including assault, ouster from matrimonial home,

misappropriation of stridhan and coercion, cannot be said to be

vague or omnibus at this stage, and the same require proper

appreciation during trial. It is thus submitted that the present

application does not warrant any interference by this Hon’ble

Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is liable to be dismissed.

10. Learned APP for the State conceded that

petitioners are in-laws of O.P. No.2 and the complaint petition

has been filed in the year 2016 by O.P. No.2 due to allegation of

dowry torture by her husband and in-laws. He submits to pass

appropriate order in facts and Circumstances of the case in the

ends of justice.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties as

well as the learned A.P.P. for the State and upon perusal of the

materials available on record, it appears that the present case

arises out of Complaint Case No. 1996-C of 2016 instituted by

O.P No.2 alleging demand of dowry and subjecting her to

cruelty by her husband and his family members (petitioners

herein). The allegations, as made in the complaint petition,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26630 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
7/11

relate to demand of a Bullet motorcycle and a sum of Rs.

2,00,000/-, physical and mental harassment, assault leading to

miscarriage, and subsequent ouster of the complainant from her

matrimonial home. The issue which arises for consideration in

the present case is as to “whether the impugned order of taking

cognizance warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its

inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure”.

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Abhishek v. State

of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2023) 16 SCC 666, has

elaborately considered the issue relating to quashing of criminal

proceedings in matrimonial offences insofar as they pertain to

the relatives of the husband, and has held 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 Kausar v. State of Bihar
[Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar,
(2022) 6 SCC 599 : (2022) 2 SCC
(Cri) 684] , 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26630 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
8/11

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.”

13. In the present case, this court finds that the

allegations relate to demand of dowry and consequent cruelty.

The allegations, insofar as the present petitioners are concerned,

who are the relatives of the husband of O.P. No.2, are general

and omnibus in nature and lack specific particulars as to the role

played by each of them in the alleged occurrence. It further

transpires that the present petitioners have been implicated in a

sweeping manner without any distinct or specific overt act
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26630 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
9/11

attributed to them.

14. Upon a careful reading of the complaint petition

and the statements recorded during enquiry does not disclose

any specific instance or particular act of cruelty or harassment

committed by these petitioners so as to prima facie attract the

ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian

Penal Code. The allegations appear to be generalized in nature

without indicating the individual role and involvement of each

of the petitioners.

15. The settled legal position, as consistently laid

down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is that in such cases, the

relatives should not be mechanically roped in on the basis of

vague and omnibus allegations. The Court has repeatedly

cautioned that criminal proceedings should not be permitted to

continue in the absence of specific allegations demonstrating

active participation of the accused persons, particularly when

such implication appears to be on account of their relationship

with the principal accused, as the same would amount to misuse

of the process of law.

16. It is well settled that, while adjudicating a prayer

for quashing of a criminal proceeding at the threshold, the Court

must confine itself to an examination of whether the allegations
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26630 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
10/11

made in the complaint, when taken at their face value and read

in conjunction with the materials on record, prima facie disclose

the commission of any offence so as to justify continuation of

the proceedings against the accused. This settled position of law

has been consistently affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a

catena of decisions, including State of Haryana & Ors. v.

Bhajan Lal & 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.

17. In view of the discussing made hereinabove and

considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is

of the considered view that continuation of the criminal

proceeding against the present petitioners would be an abuse of

the process of the Court and would not serve the ends of justice,

particularly when the materials on records do not disclose the

essential ingredients of the alleged offences so far as regards to

petitioners herein.

18. Accordingly, the impugned order dated

30.05.2017, passed in Complaint Case No. 1996-C of 2016 by

learned Trial Court so far as it relates to the petitioners herein, is

hereby quashed.

19. Resultantly, the entire criminal proceeding arising
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26630 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
11/11

thereform qua the petitioners herein stands set aside.

20. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application

is, accordingly, allowed.

21. The Interim Order, if any, is vacated.

22. Let a copy of this Order be communicated to the

concerned Court forthwith.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…