Patna High Court

Pintu Tiwary and OrsversusState Of Bihar and Anr

Decided: 28 April 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

Holding

The order of cognizance dated 07‑06‑2014 is set aside and the criminal proceedings against petitioners 2‑7 are quashed.

Summary

The petitioners (the in‑laws of the complainant) filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 CrPC seeking to set aside the Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate’s order of cognizance dated 07‑06‑2014 in a dowry‑related case. The complainant, the wife of petitioner‑1, alleged dowry demands, cruelty, assault and abduction, implicating the husband and his relatives. The High Court examined whether the allegations against the relatives were specific or merely omnibus and considered precedents on misuse of Section 498A in matrimonial disputes. Finding that the complaint contained no distinct allegations against petitioners 2‑7 and that the proceedings appeared to be an abuse of process, the Court held that the order of cognizance could not be sustained for those petitioners. Consequently, the Court set aside the magistrate’s order and quashed the criminal proceedings against petitioners 2‑7, allowing the application.

Issues considered

Whether the Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate’s order of cognizance under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 504 IPC and Sections 3,4 Dowry Prohibition Act can be set aside under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the allegations against the in‑laws are specific enough to sustain criminal prosecution or constitute an abuse of process.
Whether the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court should be exercised to quash proceedings in matrimonial disputes involving Section 498A.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 498A, 504

Subjects

dowry harassment
cruelty
Section 498A
Section 482 inherent jurisdiction
quash criminal proceedings
matrimonial dispute
abuse of process

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2885 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-162 Year-2010 Thana- BARAULI District- Gopalganj
======================================================
1. Pintu Tiwary, S/o Prabhunath Tiwary
2. Bhagmani Devi, W/o Prabhunath Tiwary
3. Satish Tiwary, S/o Prabhunath Tiwary. All are residents of Village-
Basantpur Mathia, P.O. Basantpur, Police Station- Basantpur, District Siwan.
4. Suman Tiwary, S/o Prabhunath Tiwary
5. Usha Devi, Wife of Suman Tiwary, Resident of Mohalla- Gandhi Maidan,
Siwan, Police Station - Town Thana, District Siwan.
6. Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjeev Tiwary, S/o Prabhunath Tiwary
7. Puja Devi, W/o Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjeev Tiwary, Resident of Mohalla-
Bank More, Rangatard, Police Station- Bank More, District Dhanbad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pinki Devi, W/o Pintu Tiwary, D/o Surendra Upadhyay, Resident of Village-
Basantpur Mathia, Police Station- Basantpur, District Siwan at Present
residing at Village- Dewapur, Police Station- Baraul, District Gopalganj.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER

8 28-04-2026 Vide order dated 06.04.2026, the application with

respect to petitioner no.1, namely, Pintu Tiwary, was dismissed

as not pressed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner nos.2 to 7

as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and

learned APP for the State.

3. The present application has been filed under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2885 of 2018(8) dt.28-04-2026
2/12

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) for setting aside the order

date 07.06.2014 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, Gopalganj (hereinafter referred to as ‘Magistrate’)

in connection with Tr. No.1714 of 2017 arising out of Barauli

P.S. Case No.162 of 2010, wherein the learned Magistrate took

cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 504

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against all

the accused persons.

4. Brief facts of the case, as emerging from the

complaint, are that the opposite party no.2, who is the legally

wedded wife of petitioner no.1, alleged that her marriage was

solemnized on 09.06.2002 in accordance with Hindu rites and

rituals and at the time of marriage, her family had given cash,

ornaments, clothes and other articles as per their capacity. It is

alleged that after some time of the marriage, all the accused

persons, including petitioner nos.2 to 7, started subjecting her to

cruelty on account of demand of additional dowry and, pursuant

to such demand, a motorcycle and further cash were also given

by her family members. However, despite the same, the demand

allegedly continued to escalate and she was subjected to

physical as well as mental harassment, including abuses and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2885 of 2018(8) dt.28-04-2026
3/12

threats of second marriage on the ground of her being issueless.

It has further been alleged that a Panchayati was convened to

resolve the dispute, but the accused persons (petitioners herein)

remained adamant in their demands and conduct. The complaint

further discloses that on the alleged date of occurrence, the

accused persons assaulted the complainant (O.P. No.2), forcibly

took her in a vehicle and abandoned her near Mirzapur More,

from where she was rescued by a local person who informed her

family members. Thereafter, she was taken for medical

treatment and, upon recovery, O.P No. 2 filed the complaint

being Complaint Case No.2406 of 2010, which was

subsequently forwarded for registration of F.I.R and

investigation. Accordingly, on the basis of the complaint, the

F.I.R was registered as Barauli P.S. Case No.162 of 2010,

culminating in submission of charge-sheet.

5. Upon perusal of the materials available on record,

including the complaint petition, statements recorded during

inquiry/investigation and the charge-sheet submitted by the

police, the learned Magistrate, finding a prima facie case,

proceeded to take cognizance of the offences under Sections

341, 323, 498A, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code as well as under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2885 of 2018(8) dt.28-04-2026
4/12

Prohibition Act against the petitioners vide the impugned order

dated 07.06.2014 in connection with Tr. No.1714 of 2017

arising out of Barauli P.S. Case No.162 of 2010. Aggrieved by

the impugned order of the cognizance, the present Criminal

Miscellaneous Application has been filed for setting aside the

same.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner nos.2 to 7

submits that the impugned order taking cognizance is wholly

mechanical and has been passed without proper appreciation of

the materials available on record. Learned counsel further

submits that the allegations made in the complaint petition are

omnibus, vague and general in nature, without attributing any

specific overt act to the individual petitioners. It is further

submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely

matrimonial in nature, arising out of incompatibility and

personal differences between husband and wife, which has been

given a criminal colour by falsely implicating the entire family.

Learned counsel further submits that the continuation of the

criminal proceeding against the petitioner nos.2 to 7 would

amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner nos.2 to 7 further

submits that most of the petitioners are either aged, infirm or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2885 of 2018(8) dt.28-04-2026
5/12

living separately at different places and have been unnecessarily

dragged into the present case merely to exert pressure on

husband of the opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that

petitioner no.2 is an aged and handicapped lady, while other

petitioners are residing at different places on account of their

independent avocation and livelihood. It is also submitted that

the opposite party no.2 herself was unwilling to reside in her

matrimonial home and had initiated separate maintenance

proceedings, and the present case has been instituted as a

counterblast. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the

impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and is fit to

be quashed.

8. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 supports

the impugned order and submits that the learned Magistrate has

rightly passed the impugned order upon due consideration of the

materials collected during investigation, which clearly disclose a

prima facie case against the petitioners. It is submitted that the

complaint petition and the statements of the witnesses

consistently support the allegations of demand of dowry and

cruelty, and at this stage, meticulous appreciation of evidence is

neither required nor permissible. Learned counsel further

submits that the petitioners have subjected the opposite party
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2885 of 2018(8) dt.28-04-2026
6/12

no.2 to continuous physical and mental harassment, compelling

her to leave her matrimonial home, and therefore, the criminal

proceeding cannot be said to be an abuse of the process of the

Court. Learned counsel submits that the present application is

devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

9. Learned APP for the State submits that upon

perusal of the materials on record collected during investigation,

including the statements of the informant (opposite party no.2)

and other witnesses, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken

cognizance. However, he submits that petitioner nos. 2 to 7 are

the in-laws ofopposite party no.2 and appropriate order may be

passed in the interest of justice.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner nos.2 to 7, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2

and the learned APP for the State, and upon perusal of the

materials available on record, this Court proceeds to examine

whether the impugned order warrants any interference by this

Court in light of the settled principles governing exercise of

inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2885 of 2018(8) dt.28-04-2026
7/12

(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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2885 of 2018(8) dt.28-04-2026
8/12

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.”

12. Similarly, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2885 of 2018(8) dt.28-04-2026
9/12

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)

13. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of

this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised

sparingly and with circumspection, particularly in cases arising

out of matrimonial disputes involving allegations under Section

498A of the Indian Penal Code. While the Court does not

embark upon a meticulous appreciation of evidence at this stage,

it is equally incumbent to examine whether the uncontroverted

allegations, taken at their face value, disclose the essential
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2885 of 2018(8) dt.28-04-2026
10/12

ingredients of the offences alleged against each of the accused.

In cases where distant or separately residing relatives are

implicated on the basis of general and omnibus allegations

without any specific role attributed to them, the Court is duty-

bound to prevent misuse of the criminal process and to secure

the ends of justice by exercising its inherent powers.

14. In the present case, upon careful examination of

the complaint petition and the materials brought on record, it

appears that the allegations, though serious in nature, are largely

general and omnibus so far as most of the petitioners are

concerned. Except for petitioner no. 1, who is the husband, there

is no specific and distinct allegation attributing any overt act to

the other petitioners. The allegations against the family

members are sweeping in nature and do not disclose their

individual roles in the alleged occurrence. Moreover, it

transpires from the record that several of the petitioners are

residing separately at different places on account of their

independent engagements, which lends support to the contention

that they have been implicated in a routine manner.

15. It further appears that the dispute between the

parties essentially stems from matrimonial discord between the

husband and wife, and the criminal proceeding has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2885 of 2018(8) dt.28-04-2026
11/12

initiated in the backdrop of such strained relationship. The

materials on record also indicate that the opposite party no.2

was not willing to reside in her matrimonial home and had

initiated maintenance proceedings, which suggests existence of

underlying personal disputes. In such circumstances, allowing

the criminal prosecution to continue against the petitioner nos.2

to 7, particularly those against whom no specific allegations

have been made, would amount to abuse of the process of the

Court, whereas the case of the husband stands on a different

footing requiring independent consideration.

16. This Court further finds that the present case

squarely falls within the principles laid down 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. It is now well settled that where

the allegations made in the complaint, even if taken at their face

value, do not constitute an offence or where the proceedings are

manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted with an

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, the same are liable to

be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. In the facts of

the present case, the continuation of the criminal proceeding
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2885 of 2018(8) dt.28-04-2026
12/12

against the petitioner nos.2 to 7, particularly the relatives against

whom no specific allegations have been made, would result in

abuse of the process of the Court and, therefore, warrants

interference by this Court.

17. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and

considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court

finds that the impugned order of cognizance dated 07.06.2014

passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Gopalganj in connection with Tr. No.1714 of 2017 arising out of

Barauli P.S. Case No.162 of 2010, cannot be sustained in the

eye of law so far as the petitioner nos.2 to 7 are concerned.

18. Accordingly, the impugned order of cognizance

dated 07.06.2014, is hereby set aside and the entire criminal

proceeding, as against the petitioner nos.2 to 7, stands quashed.

19. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application

is, accordingly, allowed.

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

Court concerned forthwith.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…