Patna High Court
Parchi Khatoon @ Marchi Khatoon @ Shamila KhatoonversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The High Court quashed the order taking cognizance and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners as they were based on vague, general allegations and amounted to an abuse of process.
Summary
The petitioners, who are in‑laws of the complainant, sought quash of the trial court’s order taking cognizance against them under Sections 341, 323, 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant alleged physical and mental cruelty, dowry demand and assault, but the FIR contained only vague, general accusations against the petitioners with no specific act, date or place. The petitioners argued that they were falsely implicated, that earlier proceedings had addressed only lesser offences, and that the present FIR was an abuse of process and amounted to double jeopardy. The Court examined the Supreme Court’s decision in Maram Nirmala and other precedents, emphasizing that relatives of a husband cannot be prosecuted on sweeping allegations without concrete evidence. Finding the allegations against the petitioners to be vague, contradictory and unsupported, the Court held that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of the court’s process. Consequently, the order taking cognizance and the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners were quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court’s order taking cognizance against the petitioners can be quashed on the ground of vague, omnibus allegations without specific participation.
- Whether proceeding against the petitioners amounts to abuse of process and violates the principle of double jeopardy.
- Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash such proceedings.
- Whether relatives of a husband may be prosecuted under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act absent specific allegations of active involvement.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 498
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- section 498A
- matrimonial dispute
- quash order
- abuse of process
- in‑laws liability
- vague allegations
- Section 482 CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32128 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-146 Year-2017 Thana- SRINAGAR District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Parchi Khatoon @ Marchi Khatoon @ Shamila Khatoon, Wife of Mainuddin
Gaddi, R/o Vill.- Pujara Patjirwa, P.S.- Srinagar Pujaha, District- West
Champaran.
2. Chhotelal Gaddi, Son of Nageshwar Gaddi, R/o Vill.- Pujara Patjirwa, P.S.-
Srinagar Pujaha, District- West Champaran.
3. Sabrun Khatoon, Wife of Chhotelal Gaddi, R/o Vill.- Pujara Patjirwa, P.S.-
Srinagar Pujaha, District- West Champaran.
4. Nehal Gaddi, Son of Chhotelal Gaddi, R/o Vill.- Pujara Patjirwa, P.S.-
Srinagar Pujaha, District- West Champaran.
5. Nasib Gaddi @ Nisib Gaddi, Son of Dhunmun Gaddi, R/o Vill.- Pujara
Patjirwa, P.S.- Srinagar Pujaha, District- West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shayara Khaton W/o Sarfuddin Gaddi, D/o Aliraj Gadi, R/o Vill.- Pujaha
Patjirwa, Gadiyani Tola, P.S.- Srinagar Pujaha0, District- West Champaran,
at present Vill.- Khap Tola, P.S.- Srinagar, District- West Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
6 05-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as
learned APP for the State.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing
of the order dated 05.01.2018 (hereinafter referred to as
‘Impugned Order’) passed by the learned J.M., 1st Class,
Bettiah, West Champaran (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial
Court’) in Trial No. 3920 of 2018 arising out of Srinagar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32128 of 2018(6) dt.05-05-2026
2/11
(Pujaha) P.S. Case No. 146 of 2017, whereby cognizance has
been taken for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 498A of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C’)
and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as ‘D.P. Act’) against accused persons
including petitioners and directed issuance of summons against
them.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage
of the informant (O.P. No. 2) was solemnized with accused
Sarfuddin Gaddi and out of the wedlock she was blessed with
four children. It is alleged that after three years of marriage, her
husband and his family members, including the present
petitioners, started subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty
and assaulted for demand of dowry and ultimately driven her out
along with her children. Her belongings and articles were also
allegedly snatched by the accused persons. On the basis of
above allegation, O.P. No. 2 has lodged a complaint before
S.H.O, Srinagar P.S, which got registered on 16.10.2017 as an
F.I.R bearing Srinagar (Pujaha) P.S. Case No. 146 of 2017.
Upon completion of investigation, I.O submitted the charge-
sheet against accused person including the petitioners herein for
the offences under Sections 341, 323, 498A of the I.P.C and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32128 of 2018(6) dt.05-05-2026
3/11
Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.
4. Upon perusing the F.I.R., charge-sheet and the
materials available in the case diary, the learned Trial Court, on
finding prima facie case, took cognizance against the accused
persons including petitioners herein for the offences under
Sections 341, 323, 498A of I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.
Act and directed issuance of summons against the accused
persons including the present petitioners vide impugned order.
Aggrieved thereby, petitioners herein have preferred this present
Criminal Miscellaneous Application.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case due
to matrimonial discord and with an ulterior motive to harass the
entire family of the husband. Learned counsel of petitioners
further submits that petitioner no. 1 is Gotni, petitioner no. 2 is
Nandosi, petitioner no. 3 is the Nanad, petitioner no. 4 is
Nephew and petitioner no. 5 is cousin of husband of O.P. No.2.
They are living separately and have no concern with the day-to-
day matrimonial affairs of O.P. No. 2 and her husband. Learned
counsel further submits that from bare perusal of the F.I.R., no
specific overt act or distinct role has been attributed to the
present petitioners and the allegations made against them are
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32128 of 2018(6) dt.05-05-2026
4/11
vague, omnibus and general in nature. No specific demand of
dowry, date, place or particular incident has been disclosed in
the F.I.R. so as to constitute the alleged offences. The petitioners
have neither demanded any dowry nor subjected the informant
to cruelty as alleged.
6. Learned counsel further submits that prior to the
present case, the O.P. No. 2 had already instituted Complaint
Case No. 850 (C) of 2017 dated 17.05.2017 against the same set
of accused persons for the same allegations, wherein the learned
C.J.M, Bettiah, after inquiry, found only offences under Sections
323 and 504 I.P.C. to be made out and issued process
accordingly vide order dated 07.09.2017. Learned counsel
further submits that after finding that cognizance was taken for
lesser offences, O.P. No. 2 maliciously instituted the present
F.I.R. on 16.10.2017 with exaggerated allegations under Section
498A I.P.C. and the Dowry Prohibition Act, which is nothing but
an abuse of the process of law and hit by the principle of double
jeopardy. He further submits that there are material
contradictions in the allegations, inasmuch as in the earlier
complaint O.P. No. 2 stated that she lived peacefully in her
matrimonial home for about 15 years and was blessed with four
children, whereas in the present F.I.R. it is alleged that cruelty
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32128 of 2018(6) dt.05-05-2026
5/11
started after three years of marriage. Such contradictory stands
clearly show falsity and mala fide behind the prosecution.
Learned counsel has placed reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Maram Nirmala & Anr. v. The State of
Telangana & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2913 and
judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Md. Nausad
Khan & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine Pat 9587, wherein it was held that criminal proceedings
are not allowed to continue on the basis of vague, omnibus and
general allegations against the relatives of the husband in
matrimonial offences. It is thus submitted that the learned Trial
Court has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner
without proper application of judicial mind and continuance of
the criminal proceeding against the petitioners would amount to
abuse of the process of the Court; hence, the order taking
cognizance is fit to be quashed.
7. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 conceded the fact
that petitioners are in-laws of the informant/O.P. No.2 against
whom there is no specific allegations. Father-in-law and mother-
in-law of the informant who were made accused in this case
have already died. He also conceded that the informant had filed
complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 850 (C) of 2017
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32128 of 2018(6) dt.05-05-2026
6/11
against the accused persons under Sections 498A, 406, and 323
I.P.C. in which the learned Trial Court has taken cognizance
under Section 323 and 504 I.P.C.
8. Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and the learned
A.P.P. for the State submit that in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the appropriate order may be passed.
9. 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 marriage of O.
P. No. 2 was solemnized with accused Sarfuddin Gaddi and out
of the wedlock four children were born. It is alleged that after
about three years of marriage, her husband and his family
members including the present petitioners started subjecting her
to cruelty and assault on account of demand of dowry and
ultimately she was driven out from her matrimonial home along
with her children after her belongings were snatched.
Subsequently, on the basis of available records, learned Trial
Court, took cognizance and directed issuance of summons
against accused persons including petitioner herein vide
impugned order. The main lis before this court is as to “whether
the impugned order requires intervention of this court in
exercise of inherent jurisdiction.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32128 of 2018(6) dt.05-05-2026
7/11
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maram Nirmala
(supra) has explained the implication of implicating relatives of
husband in matrimonial offences and has held as under:
“17.This Court speaking through one of us
(B.V. Nagarathna, J.) in Dara Lakshmi
Narayana, while dealing with the issue of
quashing of criminal proceedings instituted
by the respondent wife therein against her
husband and in-laws who were charged with
offences punishable under Sections 498A of
the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act,
1961, held as follows:
“27. A mere reference to the names of family
members in a criminal case arising out of a
matrimonial dispute, without specific
allegations indicating their active
involvement should be nipped in the bud. It
is a well-recognised fact, borne out of
judicial experience, that there is often a
tendency to implicate all the members of the
husband's family when domestic disputes
arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such
generalised and sweeping accusations
unsupported by concrete evidence or
particularised allegations cannot form the
basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must
exercise caution in such cases to prevent
misuse of legal provisions and the legal
process and avoid unnecessary harassment
of innocent family members. In the present
case, Appellants 2 to 6, who are the members
of the family of Appellant 1 have been living
in different cities and have not resided in the
matrimonial house of Appellant 1 and
Respondent 2 herein. Hence, they cannot be
dragged into criminal prosecution and the
same would be an abuse of the process of the
law in the absence of specific allegations
made against each of them.
xxx
30. The inclusion of Section 498-A IPC by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32128 of 2018(6) dt.05-05-2026
8/11
way of an amendment was intended to curb
cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband
and his family, ensuring swift intervention by
the State. However, in recent years, as there
have been a notable rise in matrimonial
disputes across the country, accompanied by
growing discord and tension within the
institution of marriage, consequently, there
has been a growing tendency to misuse
provisions like Section 498-AIPC as a tool
for unleashing personal vendetta against the
husband and his family by a wife. Making
vague and generalised allegations during
matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinised, will
lead to the misuse of legal processes and an
encouragement for use of arm twisting
tactics by a wife and/or her family.
Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke
Section 498-A IPC against the husband and
his family in order to seek compliance with
the unreasonable demands of a wife.
Consequently, this Court has, time and
again, cautioned against prosecuting the
husband and his family in the absence of a
clear prima facie case against them.
xxx
31. We are not, for a moment, stating that
any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms
of what has been contemplated under
Section 498-A IPC should remain silent and
forbear herself from making a complaint or
initiating any criminal proceeding. That is
not the intention of our aforesaid
observations but we should not encourage a
case like as in the present one, where as a
counterblast to the petition for dissolution of
marriage sought by the first appellant,
husband of the second respondent herein, a
complaint under Section 498-A IPC is
lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of
the said provision is meant mainly for the
protection of a woman who is subjected to
cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily
due to an unlawful demand for any property
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32128 of 2018(6) dt.05-05-2026
9/11
or valuable security in the form of dowry.
However, sometimes it is misused as in the
present case.
xxx
34. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the
impugned FIR No. 82 of 2022 filed by
Respondent 2 was initiated with ulterior
motives to settle personal scores and
grudges against Appellant 1 and his family
members i.e. Appellants 2 to 6 herein.
Hence, the present case at hand falls within
Category (7) of illustrative parameters
highlighted in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana
v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 :1992
SCC (Cri) 426]. Therefore, the High Court,
in the present case, erred in not exercising
the powers available to it under Section
482CrPC and thereby failed to prevent
abuse of the Court's process by continuing
the criminal prosecution against the
appellants.”
11. In the present case, from perusal of the F.I.R., it
appears that except general and omnibus allegations, no specific
overt act has been attributed to the petitioners. No particular
date, time, place or specific instance of demand of dowry has
been disclosed against them.
12. The settled legal position in matrimonial disputes
under Section 498A I.P.C. is that relatives of the husband should
not be compelled to face criminal prosecution on the basis of
vague, general and omnibus allegations without any specific
role being attributed to them. Mere implication of all family
members in a matrimonial dispute, particularly in-laws and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32128 of 2018(6) dt.05-05-2026
10/11
relatives living separately, without clear allegations of active
participation in cruelty or dowry demand, amounts to misuse of
the criminal process and warrants interference by the Court.
13. It further appears that prior to the present F.I.R.,
O.P. No. 2 had already instituted Complaint Case No. 850(C) of
2017 against the same set of accused persons on similar
allegations, wherein cognizance was taken only for the minor
offences under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. There is also
contradiction in the stand of the informant, as in the earlier
complaint she stated that she lived peacefully in her matrimonial
home for about 15 years, whereas in the present F.I.R. she
alleges that cruelty started after three years of marriage.
14. Considering the nature of allegations, absence of
specific and distinct accusations against the petitioners, the
contradictory stand taken by O.P. No. 2 in the earlier complaint
and the present F.I.R., and the settled principle governing
prosecution of relatives in matrimonial disputes, this Court finds
that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the
petitioners herein would amount to abuse of the process of the
Court.
15. Resultantly, in view of the discussions made
hereinabove, this court is of the considered opinion that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32128 of 2018(6) dt.05-05-2026
11/11
impugned order taking cognizance as well as the entire criminal
proceeding in connection with Trial No. 3920 of 2018 arising
out of Srinagar (Pujaha) P.S. Case No. 146 of 2017, qua
petitioners, are hereby quashed.
16. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application,
accordingly, stands allowed.
17. Interim Order, if any, is vacated.
18. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
court concerned forthwith for information and necessary
compliance.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.