Patna High Court
RAKESH SINGHversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
The Court held that the FIR lacks specific allegations against the petitioners and therefore the order taking cognizance against them is quashed.
Summary
The petitioners, who are the in‑laws of the complainant Priyanka Singh, filed applications to quash the order dated 23‑06‑2021 of the Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate that had taken cognizance against them under Sections 498A, 341, 323, 504, 354(b), 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The FIR alleged dowry demands, domestic violence and related offences but did not contain specific allegations of participation by the petitioners; they were merely named in a general manner. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that omnibus allegations against a husband’s relatives must be rejected, the Court examined whether the FIR disclosed the ingredients of the offences against the petitioners. Finding no clear role or specific acts attributable to them, the Court held that proceeding against them would be an abuse of process. Consequently, both applications were allowed and the magistrate’s order was quashed with respect to the petitioners.
Issues considered
- What specific allegations, if any, are made against the petitioners (the husband’s relatives) in the FIR?
- Whether the FIR discloses the ingredients of the offences under Sections 498A, 341, 323, 504, 354(b), 34 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners.
- Whether the High Court can quash the proceedings under its inherent powers (Section 482 CrPC) on the ground of lack of specific allegations and abuse of process.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 354B, 498A, 504
Subjects
- Dowry harassment
- Domestic violence
- Section 498A
- Quash of FIR
- Inherent powers of High Court
- Abuse of process
- In‑laws liability
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32582 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-42 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
RAKESH SINGH Son of Ram Suresh Singh Resident of village - Vibhuti
Khand, P.S. - Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow, Distt. - Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Priyanka Singh D/o of Shri Vijay Prasad Singh Temporarily residing at C/o
Shrawan Kumar, Manik Sarkar Ghat, Adampur, P.S. - Adampur, distt. -
Bhagalpur and permanent resident of village and post office - Parbatta, Distt.
- Khagaria
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 15681 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-42 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
1. SHANTI SINGH Wife of Ram Suresh Singh R/o Near Morning Glory
School, Mahamanapuri Colony, Post Office- BHU PS- Lanka, Dist-
Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh
2. Vandana Chaudhary @ Vandana @ Vandana Singh Wife of Rakesh Singh
R/o Vibhuti Khand, P.S- Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow, Dist- Lucknow, Uttar
pradesh
3. Maya Singh Wife of Vinay Singh R/o Salk Lake, P.S- Bidhan Nagar,
Kolkata, Dist- Kolkata, West Bengal
4. Ram Suresh Singh Son of Late Ram Poojan Singh R/o Near Morning Glory
School, Mahamanapuri Colony, Post Office- BHU, PS- Lanka, Dist-
Varanasi Uttar Pradesh
5. Vinay Singh Son of Ram Suresh Singh R/o Salt Lake, PS- Bidhan Nagar,
Kolkata, Dist- Kolkata, West Bengal
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Priyanka Singh D/o Sri Vijay Prasad Singh Temporarily residing at C/o
Shrawan Kumar, Manik Sarkar Ghat, Adampur, P.S- Adampur Dist-
Bhagalpur and permanent R/V and Post office- Parbatta, Dist- Khagaria
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 32582 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32582 of 2023(3) dt.30-03-2026
2/10
Mr. Pravashankar Mishra, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Narsingh Tanti
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 15681 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Pravashankar Mishra, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP
For the informant : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
3 30-03-2026 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State as also learned counsel for the informant/O.P.
No. 2.
2. Both these applications have been filed for
quashing the order dated 23-06-2021 passed by learned Sub
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur in Mahila P.S. Case
No. 42 of 2019, G.R. No. 4266 of 2019 whereby and
whereunder, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance
against the petitioners for the offence punishable under
Sections-498(A)/341/323/504/354(B)/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The prosecution story in brief is that opposite party
no.2 was married to Alok Kumar Singh on 07.03.2011 as per
Hindu rites. A few days after marriage, her husband and in-laws
started abusing and torturing her. The opposite party no.2
tolerated all these to save her marriage. In the meantime, her
husband was transferred to Varanasi where she was put to insult.
Her husband spent more time with her Bhabhi as if, she is his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32582 of 2023(3) dt.30-03-2026
3/10
wife. Her Bhaisur namely Rakesh Singh made advances by way
of obscene comment and touch and used to threaten her to
which the opposite party No. 2 tolerated. At times, she was
subjected to humiliation and abjectness. Her husband shifted her
to different house but the cruel behaviour of her husband
remained the same. She was abused and meted out with
violence by her husband.
4. The further story of the prosecution is that she was
called by Mahila Thana at Varanasi on the basis of complaint of
her husband. She was persuaded but his behaviour remained the
same. Her Bhaisur Rakesh Singh asked her to give Rs.15 lakh as
dowry and when her family members tried to convince, then her
Bhaisur again demanded dowry threatening that if the demand
of dowry is not fulfilled, her husband will marry to someone
else. Her mother requested for conciliation and sought time for
sale of land in order to pay the dowry. Another allegation was
that on 20.06.2019, her husband has beaten her, for which she
called her family members to take her to Bhagalpur. When she
came to Bhagalpur then, she consulted the doctor. In order to
save her marriage, she did not pursue the matter further but
when her Bhaisur pressurized through local people then she
came to know about divorce paper though she did not receive
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32582 of 2023(3) dt.30-03-2026
4/10
the same.
5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners
that in Cr. Misc. No. 15681 of 2023, the petitioner No. 1 is
mother-in-law, petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are sisters-in-law, the
petitioner No. 4 is father-in-law whereas the petitioner No. 5 is
brother-in-law of the informant/opposite party No. 2.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon
a decision of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs the State of Bihar
(2022), in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as
follows:--
"21. Here it must be borne in mind that although the
two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on
separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish
specific allegations against the in-laws of the Respondent wife.
Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against
the in-laws Appellants would simply result in an abure of the
process of law.
22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant
circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed
to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants
are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general
and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32582 of 2023(3) dt.30-03-2026
5/10
the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo
trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances,
that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts
severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must
therefore be discouraged."
7. One another judgment has been relied upon i.e.
Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v/s State of U.P (2012), in which, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically observed:-"Mere casual
reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial
dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter
would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking
the fact borne out of the experience that there is a tendency to
involve the entire family members of the husband in the
domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute
especially if it happens soon after the wedding.""But as the
contents of the FIR does not disclose specific allegation against
the brother and sister of the complainant's husband except
casual reference of their names, it would not be just to direct
them to go through protracted procedure by remanding for
consideration of the matter all over again by the High Court and
make the unmarried sister of the main accused and his elder
brother to suffer the ordeal of a criminal case pending against
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32582 of 2023(3) dt.30-03-2026
6/10
them specially when the FIR does not disclose ingredients of
offence under Sections 498A/323/504/506, IPC and Sections 3/4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act."
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied
upon the judgment of Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
reported in [2023 SCC Online SC 1083). He has referred
paragraph Nos. 13, 14 and 15 of the said judgment which are as
follows:
“(13) 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 alias Sonam v. State of
Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had
occasion to deal with a similar situation
where the High Court had refused to quash
a FIR registered for various offences,
including Section 498A IPC. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32582 of 2023(3) dt.30-03-2026
7/10
concern was expressed over the misuse of
Section 498A 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.
14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand
[(2010) 7 SCC 667], this Court noted that
the tendency to implicate the husband and
all his immediate relations is also not
uncommon in complaints filed under
Section 498A IPC. It was observed that the
Courts have to be extremely careful and
cautious in dealing with these complaints
and must take pragmatic realities into
consideration while dealing with
matrimonial cases, as allegations of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32582 of 2023(3) dt.30-03-2026
8/10
harassment by husband's close relations,
who were living in different cities and never
visited or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided, would add an entirely
different complexion and such allegations
would have to be scrutinised with great
care and circumspection.
15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti
[(2009) 10 SCC 184), this Court observed
that the mere mention of statutory
provisions and the language thereof, for
lodging a complaint, is not the 'be all and
end all of the matter, as what is required to
be brought to the notice of the Court is the
particulars of the offence committed by
each and every accused and the role played
by each and every accused in the
commission of that offence. These
observations were made in the context of a
matrimonial dispute involving Section 498A
IPC.
16. Of more recent origin is the
decision of this Court in Mahmood Ali v.
State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of
2023, decided on 08.08.2023) on the legal
principles applicable apropos Section 482
Cr.P.C. Therein, it was observed that when
an accused comes before the High Court,
invoking either the inherent power under
Section 482 Cr. P.C. or the extraordinary
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32582 of 2023(3) dt.30-03-2026
9/10
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”.
9. Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the
submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners saying that
there are series of allegations against them and the prima facie
case against them exists.
10. Reading of the F.I.R. would show that major
allegation is against the husband and the other persons have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32582 of 2023(3) dt.30-03-2026
10/10
been roped in the present case just to implicate the entire family
members. The Hon’ble Supreme Court on a number of
occasions has deprecated the general allegations and has
quashed the cases. There seems to be absolutely no objective
material to support the assetions.
11. Having taken into considerations the submissions
advanced on behalf of the parties, I am of the view that this is a
fit case in which interference can be made.
12. Accordingly, both these applications are allowed
and the order dated 23-06-2021 passed by learned Sub
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur in Mahila P.S. Case
No. 42 of 2019, G.R. No. 4266 of 2019 whereby and
whereunder, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance
against the petitioners for the offence punishable under
Sections-498(A)/341/323/504/354(B)/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act is quashed with respect
to the petitioners only.
(Ansul, J)
A.K.V.//-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.