Patna High Court
Usha DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
No prima facie case exists against the petitioner; therefore, the order of cognizance is quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Usha Devi, mother‑in‑law of the complainant, filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash a 2015 order of cognizance taken by the Magistrate for offences under Sections 494, 498A and 34 of the IPC. The FIR alleged cruelty and a second marriage by the complainant’s husband, Ashutosh Kumar, and implicated several family members, including the petitioner, without specific allegations against her. The petitioner argued that the allegations were vague, omnibus and amounted to abuse of process, especially since a similar proceeding had earlier been quashed by this Court. The State contended that the Magistrate was correct to take cognizance on prima facie material. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that prohibit the prosecution of relatives on vague allegations and emphasizing the need to prevent misuse of Section 482, the Court found no prima facie case against the petitioner and quashed the order of cognizance, setting aside the criminal proceedings against her.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of cognizance under Sections 494, 498A and 34 IPC can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when the allegations against the petitioner are vague and lack specific material.
- Whether a mother‑in‑law can be held liable for offences under Section 498A absent distinct allegations of cruelty.
- Whether the continuation of the criminal proceeding constitutes an abuse of the process of law and is manifestly frivolous or mala fide.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 494, 498A
Subjects
- Section 482 CrPC
- quash order
- cognizance
- Section 498A IPC
- family members liability
- abuse of process
- mala fide prosecution
- matrimonial dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26826 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2015 Thana- RUPASPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Usha Devi, Wife of Late Bachcha Sharma Resident of House No. 30 Nehru
Nagar, P.S.- Patliputra, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Smt. Sindhu Devi, Wife of Sri Makeshwar Sharma, resident of Mohalla-
Ram Jaipal Nagar, Gola Road, Near (House No. 161 Safi Alam IPS) P.S.-
Rupaspur, District- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Usha Kumari Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Gauri Shankar Gupta, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
8 07-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned APP for thew State.
2. The present application has been filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the order dated
25.07.2015 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., 1st, Danapur
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Magistrate’) in connection with
Rupaspur P.S. Case No.70 of 2015, corresponding to Trial
No.798 of 2015 wherein learned Magistrate took cognizance of
the offence under Sections 494 and 498A read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused persons
including the petitioner herein, who is mother-in-law of the O.P.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26826 of 2018(8) dt.07-04-2026
2/10
No.2.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, as alleged in the
First Information Report lodged by O.P. No.2 (informant),
namely Sindhu Devi, is that she is the legally wedded wife of
co-accused Ashutosh Kumar, and their marriage was solemnized
on 27.02.2009 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals, out of
which wedlock a female child was born on 21.02.2010. It is
alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and was threatened that
her husband would contract a second marriage with the
connivance of the family members who are made accused in the
case, including the present petitioner. It is further alleged that
the husband of O.P. No.2 solemnized second marriage on
02.12.2014. On the basis of the said allegations, the present case
came to be instituted bearing Rupaspur P.S. Case No.70 of
2015.
4. Upon perusal of the materials available on record
and the nature of allegations made in the written report, learned
Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 494,
498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against
Ashutosh Kumar (husband of O.P. No.2), Usha Devi
(petitioner), Bachcha Sharma (deceased father-in-law of O.P.
No.2), Juli Kumari, Nidhi Kumari, Nagendra Kumar and Mintu
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26826 of 2018(8) dt.07-04-2026
3/10
Kumari. Aggrieved by the impugned order of cognizance by the
learned Magistrate, the petitioner has filed present Criminal
Miscellaneous Application to quash the impugned order dated
25.07.2015 taking cognizance.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order taking cognizance, is wholly misconceived and
unsustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further
submits that the petitioner, being mother-in-law of O.P. No.2,
has been falsely implicated in the present case in a routine
manner without there being any specific or direct allegation
against her in the F.I.R. It is submitted that the allegations are
vague, general and omnibus in nature and do not satisfy the
essential ingredients of the offence under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code so far as the petitioner is concerned. Learned
counsel submits that the core allegations pertain to the husband,
namely Ashutosh Kumar, particularly with respect to the alleged
second marriage, and the present petitioner has been implicated
only on account of her relationship with the husband of O.P.
No.2.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that on an earlier occasion also, O.P. No.2 had instituted a
complaint case on similar allegations, being Complaint Case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26826 of 2018(8) dt.07-04-2026
4/10
No. 233(C) of 2013, wherein cognizance had been taken against
the accused persons including the present petitioner, however,
the said order of cognizance was quashed by this Court vide
order dated 04.01.2018 passed in Cr. Misc. No.11707 of 2015.
Learned counsel submits that despite the said order of quashing,
the O.P. No.2 has again initiated the present criminal proceeding
on the same set of allegations, which clearly reflects her mala
fide intention to harass the petitioner. It is further submitted that
the present case has been lodged as a counterblast to the
matrimonial case filed by the husband, and the learned
Magistrate has mechanically taken cognizance without proper
application of judicial mind. It is, therefore, submitted that the
impugned order be quashed so far as the present petitioner is
concerned.
7. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
quashing and submits that the allegations made in the F.I.R.,
taken at their face value, disclose the commission of cognizable
offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Learned
APP further submits that at the stage of cognizance, a detailed
appreciation of evidence is not required, and the learned
Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance upon finding prima
facie materials on record.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26826 of 2018(8) dt.07-04-2026
5/10
8. Despite valid service of notice upon O.P. No.2,
none has appeared on her behalf to contest the present
application. In such circumstances, this Court is left with no
option but to proceed with the matter in absence of O.P. No.2
and decide the case on the basis of the materials available on
record as well as the submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner and the State.
9. It is 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26826 of 2018(8) dt.07-04-2026
6/10
10. 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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26826 of 2018(8) dt.07-04-2026
7/10
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
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.”
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:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26826 of 2018(8) dt.07-04-2026
8/10
“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
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 consideration of the factual matrix of the
present case, it emerges that the marriage between O.P. No.2
and the co-accused Ashutosh Kumar was solemnized in the year
2009 and disputes arose thereafter, primarily between the
husband and wife. The core allegations in the F.I.R. relate to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26826 of 2018(8) dt.07-04-2026
9/10
alleged cruelty and the second marriage of the husband, which
are specifically attributable to him. So far as the present
petitioner is concerned, the allegations are general in nature
without any specific instance of cruelty or overt act. It further
appears that the petitioner has been residing separately and has
no direct role in the day-to-day matrimonial affairs of the
couple. It is also significant that on earlier occasion, on similar
allegations, the order of cognizance was quashed by this Court,
which lends support to the contention that the present
prosecution qua the petitioner, lacks substantive foundation and
appears to have been instituted in continuation of the
matrimonial discord rather than on the basis of specific criminal
conduct of the present petitioner.
13. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and
considering the nature of allegations as well as the materials
available on record, this Court is of the opinion that no prima
facie case is made out against the petitioner for the offences
alleged. Continuation of the criminal proceeding against the
petitioner would, therefore, amount to abuse of the process of
the Court and would not serve the ends of justice. Therefore, the
impugned order taking cognizance dated 25.07.2015 qua the
present petitioner, is fit to be quashed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26826 of 2018(8) dt.07-04-2026
10/10
14. Consequently, the impugned order dated
25.07.2015 passed in connection with Rupaspur P.S. Case No.70
of 2015, corresponding to Trial No.798 of 2015, pending in the
court of learned A.C.J.M.-I, Danapur, is hereby quashed so far
as the present petitioner is concerned.
15. Resultantly, the entire criminal proceeding against
the petitioner in the aforesaid case stands set aside.
16. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous
Application stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
17. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary
compliance.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-
U T
Checking your session…