Patna High Court
Anwar and OrsversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The High Court held that the allegations were vague and omnibus, did not establish a prima facie case against the petitioners, and therefore the order taking cognizance was quashed as an abuse of process under Section 482 CrPC.
Summary
The petitioners, who are the in‑laws of the complainant, filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quash of the trial court's order taking cognizance of an offence under Section 498A IPC. The complaint alleged that after six months of marriage the husband and his relatives demanded additional dowry, subjected the wife to cruelty, assaulted her and drove her out of the matrimonial home. The trial court mechanically took cognizance against the husband and the in‑laws without examining whether specific allegations were made against each of them. The High Court examined the material and held that the allegations against the in‑laws were vague, bald and omnibus, failing to disclose any individual role or the essential ingredients of Section 498A. Consequently, continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the court's process, and the order of cognizance was set aside, quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
Issues considered
- Whether the complaint's allegations disclose a prima facie case against the in‑laws under Section 498A IPC.
- Whether proceeding against the in‑laws would constitute an abuse of process warranting quash under Section 482 CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- Section 498A
- abuse of process
- inherent jurisdiction
- quash of criminal proceedings
- marital dispute
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26983 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-823 Year-2016 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District-
Kishanganj
======================================================
1. Md. Rasid @ Md. Rasid Son of Jumarat
2. Sahera Wife of Rasid @ Md. Rasid
3. Md. Mujahir Son of Rasid @ Md. Rasid
4. Md. Munajir Son of Rasid @ Md. Rasid
5. Md. Barka Babu Son of Rasid @ Md. Rasid
6. Md. Bachcha Babu Son of Rasid @ Md. Rasid
7. Sehrul Son of Rasid @ Md. Rasid
8. Rahat Praveen Wife of Mujahir
9. Asiya Wife of Sehrul All are residents of Village - Khajurbari, Police Station
- Terhagachh, District - Kishanganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Amana Khatoon Wife of Anwar Resident of Village Khajurbari, Police
Station - Terhagachh, District - Kishanganj, presently resident of Village -
Dhata, P.S. - Sikati, District - Araria.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. R. Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar-2, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
10 03-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
learned APP for the State.
2. The present application has been preferred under
section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for quashing the
order dated 06.06.2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned
order’) passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Kishanganj (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Trial Court’) arising out of Complaint Case No.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26983 of 2018(10) dt.03-07-2026
2/10
C823 of 2016, whereby cognizance has been taken for the
offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 against the petitioners and husband of O.P No.2.
3. vide order dated 23.06.2026, petitioner namely
Anwar (co-accused/the husband of the O.P. No.2) was permitted
to withdraw his application. Consequently, his name has been
expunged from the array of petitioners. Thus, the present
application survives only at the instance of remaining
petitioners, who are the father-in-law, mother-in-law, brothers-
in-law and Gotanis of the O.P. No.2.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage
of complainant(O.P. No.2), was solemnized with Anwar
according to Muslim rites and customs. It is alleged that
sufficient gifts including ornaments, cash and other household
articles were given at the time of marriage by parents of O.P
No.2. It is further alleged that after about six months of the
marriage, husband of O.P No.2 and petitioners herein started
demanding an additional dowry of rupees 1,50,000/- and a
buffalo and, on non-fulfilment of the said demand, subjected her
to physical and mental cruelty. It is further alleged that on
06.11.2016, the accused persons physically assaulted O.P. No.2
and, while reiterating their demand for dowry, threatened that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26983 of 2018(10) dt.03-07-2026
3/10
her husband would solemnize a second marriage in the event of
non-fulfilment of the said demand, and when she resisted, she
was forcibly driven out of her matrimonial home after snatching
her silver chain. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, O.P.
No.2 submitted a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kishanganj, which was subsequently registered as
complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. C823 of 2016.
5. Upon perusal of the materials available on record,
including the complaint petition, the solemn affirmation of O.P.
No.2 and the statements of the witnesses, the learned Trial
Court, found sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused
persons and, vide impugned order dated 06.06.2017, took
cognizance of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code against petitioner herein and husband of O.P. No.2.
Aggrieved thereby, the present petitioners have preferred this
Criminal Miscellaneous Application seeking quashing of the
impugned order of cognizance.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
impugned order of cognizance suffers from complete non-
application of judicial mind. Learned counsel further submits
that the complaint petition as well as the materials collected
during the inquiry do not disclose the commission of any
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26983 of 2018(10) dt.03-07-2026
4/10
offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code against the
present petitioners. The allegations are vague, bald and omnibus
in nature, without attributing any specific overt act or distinct
role to any of the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits
that the learned Trial Court mechanically took cognizance
without satisfying itself that the essential ingredients of the
alleged offence were made out against present petitioners.
7. Learned counsel further submits that present
petitioner no.1 is the father-in-law, petitioner no.2 is the mother-
in-law, petitioner nos.3 to 7 are the brother-in-law (Devar) and
petitioner nos.8 and 9 are the Gotani of O.P. No.2. He further
submits that except making general allegations against all the
family members, no specific allegation has been levelled against
any of the present petitioners. It is, thus, submitted that
continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners
would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and,
accordingly, the impugned order taking cognizance deserves to
be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
8. Despite valid service of notice and several
opportunities provided to O.P. No.2, no one is present on behalf
of O.P. No.2.
9. Learned APP for the State submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26983 of 2018(10) dt.03-07-2026
5/10
allegations made in the complaint disclose prima facie
commission of cognizable offence and the learned Trial Court
has rightly taken cognizance. However, he has conceded that
petitioners are in-law of O.P. No.2 and appropriate order may be
passed in the interest of justice.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as learned APP for state and upon perusal of
the materials available on record, it appears that O.P. No.2 was
married to Anwar according to Muslim rites and customs. The
allegations in the complaint are that after about six months of the
marriage, all the accused persons demanded an additional dowry
and, on account of non-fulfillment of the said demand, subjected
O.P. No.2 to cruelty. It is further alleged that on 06.11.2016, O.P.
No.2 was assaulted, threatened that her husband would contract
a second marriage and was ultimately driven out of her
matrimonial home after her silver chain was allegedly snatched.
Subsequently, the learned Trial Court, vide the impugned order
dated 06.06.2017, took cognizance of the offence punishable
under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against husband of
O.P. No.2 and present petitioners. In above facts and
circumstances, the question which arises for consideration is
whether the allegations and the materials available on record
disclose a prima facie case against the present petitioners, or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26983 of 2018(10) dt.03-07-2026
6/10
whether the continuation of the criminal proceeding against
them would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court
warranting interference by this Court under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code.
11. At the outset, it is well settled that the inherent
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Criminal
Procedure Code is to be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection and in the rarest of appropriate cases. While
exercising such jurisdiction, the Court is required to assess
whether the uncontroverted allegations in the complaint petition
and the materials brought on record, taken at their face value,
prima facie disclose the commission of the alleged offence
against the accused and make out a prima facie case for
proceeding against them. If the allegations are so absurd and
inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, or
where the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and
has been instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, the same is liable to be quashed to secure the ends of
justice.
12. At this stage, it is appropriate 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26983 of 2018(10) dt.03-07-2026
7/10
(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-A 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 acquittal, would inflict severe scars
upon the accused and such an exercise ought
to be discouraged.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26983 of 2018(10) dt.03-07-2026
8/10
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.”
13. In the present case, upon careful examination of
materials on records, it transpires that except making general and
omnibus allegations against the present petitioners, no specific
overt act or distinct role has been attributed to any of the present
petitioners. The allegations are collective in nature and do not
disclose as to which of the present petitioners demanded the
alleged dowry or subjected O.P. No.2 to cruelty. The present
petitioners, are in-laws of O.P. No.2, appear to have been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26983 of 2018(10) dt.03-07-2026
9/10
implicated solely on account of their relationship with husband
of O.P. No.2.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held
that in matrimonial disputes there is a growing tendency to
implicate all the relatives of the husband. It has been cautioned
that criminal proceedings against the relatives of the husband
cannot be permitted to continue merely on the basis of vague,
bald and omnibus allegations, in the absence of specific
allegations disclosing their individual role in the commission of
the alleged offence.
15. The principles governing the exercise of inherent
jurisdiction were authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal
&Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein it was held,
inter alia, that where the allegations made in the complaint, even
if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not
prima facie constitute any offence against the accused, the High
Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to
prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends
of justice.
16. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the
facts of the present case, this Court finds that the allegations
against the present petitioners are wholly general and omnibus
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26983 of 2018(10) dt.03-07-2026
10/10
and do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against them individually.
The learned Trial Court appears to have mechanically taken
cognizance without examining whether the materials on record
disclose a prima facie case against each of the present
petitioners. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court,
continuation of the criminal proceeding against them would,
therefore, amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
17. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.06.2017
passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Kishanganj in Complaint Case
No. C 823 of 2016, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the entire
criminal proceeding arising therefrom, so far as it relates to the
present petitioners, stands quashed.
18. The present criminal miscellaneous application is,
accordingly, allowed.
19. Interim order(s), if any, stands vacated.
20. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court
concerned forthwith for needful and compliance.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.