Dhananjai Jha and AnrversusState Of Bihar and Anr

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32624 of 2018
        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-283 Year-2016 Thana- SHASTRINAGAR District- Patna
     ======================================================
1.    Dhananjai Jha, Son of Late Baldeo Jha,
2.   Nilima Jha, Wife of Dhananjai Jha, Both Resident of Flat No. 203, Veena
     Shree Apartment, New Punaichak, P.S.- Shastrinagar, District- Patna-
     800023.
                                                             ... ... Petitioner/s
                                     Versus
1.   The State of Bihar
2.    Tanushree Sandilya Jha, Ex-Wife of Avinash Jha, Daughter of Amarnath
      Mishra, Resident of 203, Dhaneshwar Heritage, Priya Darshi Nagar, P.S.-
      Rupaspur, District- Patna.
                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
                                     Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
     For the State            :      Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.P.P.
     For the O.P. No.2        :      Mr. Kripa Nand Jha, Advocate
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
                         C.A.V. JUDGMENT
      Date : 10-02-2026

                         1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

      A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Party

      No.2 (O.P. No.2).

                         2. The present application has been filed on behalf

      of the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 23.04.2018

      passed in Shastrinagar P.S. Case No.283 of 2016 by the learned

      Sub-Judge IV-cum-A.C.J.M., Patna (hereinafter referred to as

      ‘Magistrate’) wherein cognizance for offences under Sections

      498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections

      3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has been taken

      against the petitioners who are in-laws of the informant (O.P.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
                                           2/20




         No.2) and also against her husband.

                         3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the

         marriage between O.P. No.2 and Avinash Jha (co-accused), son

         of the petitioners, was solemnized on 10.12.2006 at Patna as per

         Hindu rites and rituals with the consent of both families. At the

         time of marriage, O.P. No.2 was employed in Japan, whereas

         her husband was employed in a company at Sweden. It is stated

         that after marriage, she was subjected to mental and physical

         cruelty on account of demand for dowry, including a luxury car

         and an apartment at Delhi, and was humiliated and assaulted by

         her husband and in-laws (petitioners herein). Further allegations

         have been made that substantial articles were given by her

         parental family, including gold, silver, cash, furniture, utensils,

         clothes, and household articles at the time of her marriage and

         on the birth of their daughter on 16.04.2010 in Sweden, but her

         streedhan was neither returned nor accounted for. It is also

         alleged that during her stay abroad and in India, she was

         compelled to transfer her salary to the accounts of her father-in-

         law and was subjected to repeated acts of harassment and

         assault. Allegations of forcible extraction of money, snatching of

         ATM cards by her father-in-law and cheque books, and

         unauthorized withdrawal of funds have also been made. The
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
                                           3/20




         O.P. No.2 has further alleged that she was subjected to cruelty

         during her pregnancies, including pressure for sex determination

         tests and attempts to compel her to abort the female foetus. It is

         stated that she gave birth to her second daughter on 15.05.2015

         in Sweden, and continued to face ill-treatment from her husband

         and in-laws. In between 2006 to 2014, O.P. No.2 had handled

         everything alone, from her office works to household works and

         her husband had merely focused on his career. Allegations have

         also been made regarding deception in obtaining her signatures

         on documents written in a foreign language, which resulted into

         dissolution of her marriage with Avinash Jha (co-accused) vide

         judgment dated 29.08.2014 passed by the Gävle District Court

         in Sweden, without her informed consent. It has been alleged

         that on 20.06.2016, when the O.P. No.2 went to her matrimonial

         home at Patna along with her father and some relatives to

         demand return of her jewellery and belongings, she was

         threatened with dire consequences. On the basis of these

         allegations, O.P. No.2 lodged a written report on 20.06.2016

         before the In-charge of Shastrinagar Police Station alleging

         cruelty and dowry-related harassment by her husband and in-

         laws. On the basis of the said written report, Shastrinagar P.S.

         Case No. 283 of 2016 dated 20.06.2016 was registered under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
                                           4/20




         Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of

         the Dowry Prohibition Act, where after the investigation, the

         police submitted charge-sheet on 31.01.2018 bearing C.S. No.25

         of 2018.

                         4. After perusal of the materials collected during

         the course of investigation, the learned Magistrate, vide

         impugned order dated 23.04.2018, took cognizance for the

         offences punishable under Sections 498A & 34 of the Indian

         Penal Code, and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

         Act against the three accused persons, namely, Avinash Jha,

         Dhananjai Jha (petitioner no.1) and Nilima Jha (petitioner no.2).

         Petitioners, being aggrieved by the said order of cognizance

         against them, have preferred this application praying to quash

         the impugned order dated 23.04.2018 passed against them. This

         Court vide order dated 12.10.2018 stayed the further

         proceedings in the case as regards petitioner nos.1 & 2.

                         5. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the

         impugned order of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate

         and submitted that on bare perusal of the F.I.R. it is explicit that

         the marriage between O.P. No.2 and Avinash Jha (son of

         petitioners) was solemnized on 10.12.2006 and they were living

         separately in different foreign countries, both professionally
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
                                           5/20




         employed and earning a substantial income. O.P. No.2 is

         presently residing in Japan. It is submitted that the matrimonial

         discord arose out of personal differences between the couple

         during their stay abroad, culminating in dissolution of marriage

         by a decree of divorce dated 29.08.2014 passed by a competent

         court in Sweden with the consent of both parties, without the

         involvement or knowledge of the petitioners. It is further

         submitted that the petitioners, being aged parents, were not

         residing with the couple except for a brief period when they

         visited India during vacation and had no occasion to interfere in

         their conjugal life. Also, the divorce between the couple was

         granted in 2014 and the F.I.R. was lodged by the O.P. No.2 in

         2016 just to oppress and vex the petitioners.

                         6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further

         submitted that there is no material indicating involvement of the

         petitioners in any alleged act of cruelty or dowry demand and

         that even foreign proceedings revealed serious disputes only

         between the spouses, resulting in custody of the minor first child

         being granted to the son of the petitioners. It is submitted that

         the couple were earning handsome salaries while working in

         reputed companies in foreign country, where they had their own

         house and were blessed with two children. However, due to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
                                           6/20




         matrimonial discord, O.P. No.2 has unnecessarily dragged the

         petitioners into the said dispute, despite there being no fault

         attributable to them. The petitioners had no role, or influence

         whatsoever in the matrimonial life of O.P. No.2 and their son.

         Thus, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners,

         who are at an advanced stage of their lives. It is further

         submitted that the criminal case has been instituted as a

         counterblast to an earlier F.I.R. lodged by petitioner no.2 arising

         out of an incident at the petitioners’ residence and is nothing but

         an abuse of the process of law.

                         7. Learned counsel, moreover, submitted that both

         the petitioners are aged about 75 years, and due to subsisting

         poor health, they have shifted to and residing at Greater Noida

         for their treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi for more than last 5

         years. It is submitted that the petitioner no.2 has been diagnosed

         with carcinoma and is totally bedridden. Learned counsel

         further submitted that both the petitioners have falsely been

         implicated with ulterior motive based on concocted and

         frivolous story by the O.P. No.2.

                         8. Learned counsel has put his reliance on various

         judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including Arnesh

         Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr., reported in (2014) 8 SCC
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
                                           7/20




         273; K. Subba Rao and Ors. v. State of Telangana and Ors.,

         reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452; and Rajesh Sharma and Ors. v.

         State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., reported in (2018) 10 SCC

         472 wherein it has been observed that owing to the surge in

         matrimonial disputes in recent times, the instances of false

         implication have markedly increased and courts must exercise

         due circumspection while proceeding against relatives specially

         when the allegations are omnibus. It is, lastly, submitted that the

         ingredients of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and Section 3

         & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in no instance, can be found,

         thus, the impugned order against the petitioners be quashed to

         prevent the abuse of the process of court and for the ends of

         justice.

                         9. Per contra, learned counsel for O.P. No.2

         submitted that the allegations made in the F.I.R. disclose a

         continuous course of conduct amounting to cruelty and dowry

         related harassment, beginning soon after the marriage and

         extending over several years, both in India and abroad. Learned

         counsel further submitted that the petitioners have provoked and

         instigated the co-accused to torture and assault the O.P. No.2. It

         is submitted that substantial dowry articles, including gold,

         silver, cash, household goods were given at the time of birth of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
                                           8/20




         their maiden child, but neither the streedhan was returned nor

         they were accounted for. Learned counsel further submitted that

         mere residence of spouses abroad does not absolve the

         petitioners from their liability, particularly when specific

         allegations have been made against them. It is submitted that the

         alleged divorce was cunningly obtained in a foreign nation

         while the O.P. No.2 was residing with her husband/co-accused

         under the same roof, however, O.P. No.2 has filed a Matrimonial

         Suit No.884 of 2017 for declaring the divorce obtained in

         foreign nation to nullity and now, the said issue is pending

         before this Court in appeal in a separate proceeding which is not

         required to be dealt within this proceeding. It is further

         submitted that the decree of divorce obtained in the foreign

         country can neither, by itself, nullify the criminal liability

         arising out of the offences committed by the petitioners during

         the subsistence of marriage, nor can it be used as a ground to

         stifle legitimate prosecution at the threshold. It is submitted that

         at the time of taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate is only

         to see that prima facie case is made out or not against the

         petitioners. It is, lastly submitted that the impugned order is just

         and proper, and the present petition seeking quashing of the

         impugned order is liable to be dismissed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
                                           9/20




                         10. Learned A.P.P. for the State supported the

         impugned order and submitted that the F.I.R., read as a whole

         prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offence under

         Sections 498A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of

         Dowry Prohibition Act. It is submitted that the investigation has

         culminated in submission of charge-sheet against the petitioners

         and, therefore, learned Magistrate was justified in taking

         cognizance of the offences. Moreover, it is submitted that at the

         stage of quashing, the Court is not required to appreciate

         evidence or adjudicate upon disputed question of facts, and the

         same may be left open to be decided during trial. Therefore, the

         impugned order warrants no interference by this Court.

                         11.    Having       heard the      learned counsel   for

         petitioners, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 as well as the

         learned A.P.P. appearing for the State, and upon perusal of the

         materials available on record it is not controverted that the O.P.

         No.2 was married to Avinash Jha (son of the petitioners) on

         10.12.2006 and they were living apart in different countries due

         to their professional employment. In the meantime, the couple

         was granted divorce vide judgment dated 29.08.2014 passed by

         the Gävle District Court in Sweden with their mutual consent.

         However, the validity of the said judgment of divorce is under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
                                           10/20




         challenge in a separate proceeding. On written complaint of the

         O.P. No.2, F.I.R. against the petitioners and their son Avinash

         Jha was registered on 20.06.2016 alleging offences punishable

         under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under

         Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

                         12. It is pertinent to note that the court owes a duty

         to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough

         scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of

         truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the

         sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge,

         more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial

         dispute.

                         13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, time and again,

         has also made the stance very clear with respect to the criminal

         allegations arising out of matrimonial discords. The Hon’ble

         Apex Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, reported in

         (2010) 7 SCC 667 has observed as under:

                                 “32. It is a matter of common experience
                                 that most of these complaints under Section
                                 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the
                                 moment over trivial issues without proper
                                 deliberations. We come across a large
                                 number of such complaints which are not
                                 even bona fide and are filed with oblique
                                 motive. At the same time, rapid increase in
                                 the number of genuine cases of dowry
                                 harassment is also a matter of serious
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
                                           11/20




                                 concern.
                                     33. The learned members of the Bar have
                                 enormous       social     responsibility    and
                                 obligation to ensure that the social fibre of
                                 family life is not ruined or demolished. They
                                 must ensure that exaggerated versions of
                                 small incidents should not be reflected in the
                                 criminal complaints. Majority of the
                                 complaints are filed either on their advice or
                                 with their concurrence. The learned
                                 members of the Bar who belong to a noble
                                 profession must maintain its noble traditions
                                 and should treat every complaint under
                                 Section 498-A as a basic human problem
                                 and must make serious endeavour to help the
                                 parties in arriving at an amicable resolution
                                 of that human problem. They must discharge
                                 their duties to the best of their abilities to
                                 ensure that social fibre, peace and
                                 tranquillity of the society remains intact. The
                                 members of the Bar should also ensure that
                                 one complaint should not lead to multiple
                                 cases.
                                     34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of
                                 the complaint the implications and
                                 consequences are not properly visualised by
                                 the complainant that such complaint can
                                 lead to insurmountable harassment, agony
                                 and pain to the complainant, accused and
                                 his close relations.
                                     35. The ultimate object of justice is to
                                 find out the truth and punish the guilty and
                                 protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a
                                 herculean task in majority of these
                                 complaints. The tendency of implicating the
                                 husband and all his immediate relations is
                                 also not uncommon. At times, even after the
                                 conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to
                                 ascertain the real truth. 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. The
                                 allegations of harassment of husband's
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
                                           12/20




                                 close relations who had been living in
                                 different cities and never visited or rarely
                                 visited the place where the complainant
                                 resided would have an entirely different
                                 complexion. The allegations of the
                                 complaint are required to be scrutinised
                                 with great care and circumspection.”
                                                         (emphasis supplied)

                         14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta

         Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., reported

         in (2012) 10 SCC 741 has observed as under:

                                 “20. Coming to the facts of this case, when
                                 the contents of the FIR are perused, it is
                                 apparent that there are no allegations
                                 against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji
                                 Mehrotra except casual reference of their
                                 names which have been included in the FIR
                                 but 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 experience that there is a
                                 tendency to involve the entire family
                                 members of the household in the domestic
                                 quarrel taking place in a matrimonial
                                 dispute specially if it happens soon after the
                                 wedding.
                                    21. It would be relevant at this stage to
                                 take note of an apt observation of this Court
                                 recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao v. L.H.V.
                                 Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3
                                 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] wherein
                                 also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had
                                 held that the High Court should have
                                 quashed the complaint arising out of a
                                 matrimonial dispute wherein all family
                                 members had been roped into the
                                 matrimonial litigation which was quashed
                                 and set aside. Their Lordships observed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
                                           13/20




                                 therein with which we entirely agree that :
                                 (SCC p. 698, para 12)
                                            ‘12. There has been an outburst of
                                        matrimonial dispute in recent times.
                                        Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the
                                        main purpose of which is to enable the
                                        young couple to settle down in life and
                                        live peacefully. But little matrimonial
                                        skirmishes suddenly erupt which often
                                        assume serious proportions resulting
                                        in commission of heinous crimes in
                                        which elders of the family are also
                                        involved with the result that those who
                                        could have counselled and brought
                                        about rapprochement are rendered
                                        helpless on their being arrayed as
                                        accused in the criminal case. There
                                        are many other reasons which need
                                        not be mentioned here for not
                                        encouraging matrimonial litigation so
                                        that the parties may ponder over their
                                        defaults and terminate their disputes
                                        amicably by mutual agreement instead
                                        of fighting it out in a court of law
                                        where it takes years and years to
                                        conclude and in that process the
                                        parties lose their “young” days in
                                        chasing their “cases” in different
                                        courts.’
                                 The view taken by the Judges in this matter
                                 was that the courts would not encourage
                                 such disputes.”
                         15. Moreover, while taking note of the phenominal

         increase in        matrimonial disputes in the recent years, the

         Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) has observed

         as under:

                                 “4. There is phenomenal increase in
                                 matrimonial disputes in recent years. The
                                 institution of marriage is greatly revered in
                                 this country. Section 498-A IPC was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
                                           14/20




                                 introduced with avowed object to combat the
                                 menace of harassment to a woman at the
                                 hands of her husband and his relatives. The
                                 fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable
                                 and non-bailable offence has lent it a
                                 dubious place of pride amongst the
                                 provisions that are used as weapons rather
                                 than shield by disgruntled wives. The
                                 simplest way to harass is to get the husband
                                 and his relatives arrested under this
                                 provision. In quite a number of cases,
                                 bedridden grandfathers and grandfathers of
                                 the husbands, their sisters living abroad for
                                 decades are arrested. “Crime in India 2012
                                 Statistics” published by the National Crime
                                 Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs
                                 shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over
                                 India during the year 2012 for the offence
                                 under Section 498-A IPC, 9.4% more than
                                 the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those
                                 arrested under this provision in 2012 were
                                 women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that
                                 mothers and sisters of the husbands were
                                 liberally included in their arrest net. Its
                                 share is 6% out of the total persons arrested
                                 under the crimes committed under Penal
                                 Code, 1860. It accounts for 4.5% of total
                                 crimes committed under different sections of
                                 the Penal Code, more than any other crimes
                                 excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-
                                 sheeting in cases under Section 498-AIPC is
                                 as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate
                                 is only 15%, which is lowest across all
                                 heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are
                                 pending trial of which on current estimate,
                                 nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in
                                 acquittal.”

                         16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Subba Rao

         (supra) has observed in para 6 as under:

                                 “6. Criminal proceedings are not normally
                                 interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
                                           15/20




                                 unless there is an abuse of the process of a
                                 court. This Court, at the same time, does not
                                 hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of
                                 justice. See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
                                 [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp
                                 (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] . The
                                 courts should be careful in proceeding
                                 against the distant relatives in crimes
                                 pertaining to matrimonial disputes and
                                 dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband
                                 should not be roped in on the basis of
                                 omnibus      allegations    unless    specific
                                 instances of their involvement in the crime
                                 are made out. See Kans Raj v. State of
                                 Punjab [Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000)
                                 5 SCC 207 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 935] and
                                 Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P.
                                 [Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P.,
                                 (2014) 16 SCC 551 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri)
                                 536].”

                         17. Relying on the aforesaid judgments, 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
                                 apropos Section 482CrPC 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
                                           16/20




                                 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)

                         18. Taking reference of a recent judgment of the

         Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nitin Ahluwalia v State of Punjab

         and Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2013 as of para 9,

         which is as under:

                                 “Here, the respondent filed the complaint
                                 after the grant of divorce, a month later.
                                 Granted that the same is not expressly
                                 prohibited by law, it certainly begs the
                                 question as to why despite having been
                                 separated from the appellant for almost
                                 three years to the date, did the respondent
                                 consider filing an application with the police
                                 at that relevant time. To entertain the
                                 possibility that the same is nothing but a
                                 counterblast to the fact that the appellant
                                 has two orders in his favour, one by the
                                 Courts in Austria ordering the respondent to
                                 bring the child back to Australia and the
                                 other, by the Courts in Australia, accepting
                                 the appellant's prayer for grant of divorce,
                                 does not appear far-fetched.”

         In the present case, the F.I.R. lodged by the O.P. No.2 in 2016
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
                                           17/20




         which is two years after the decree of divorce granted by the

         foreign court in the year 2014. Also, the petitioner no.2 has

         registered an F.I.R. against the O.P. No.2 and her relatives prior

         to that registered by the O.P. No.2.

                         19. Now, the law with respect to quashing of

         criminal proceeding is well settled that while considering a

         prayer to quash the criminal complaint and the consequential

         proceedings at the threshold, the Court is required to examine

         whether the allegations made in the complaint along with

         materials in support thereof make out a prima facie case to

         proceed against the accused or not. The reference to the same

         has been made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments

         including 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.

                         20. In the instant case, upon careful consideration

         of the materials available on record and the rival submissions, it

         is evident that O.P. No.2 and her husband (Avinash Jha), who is

         co-accused, were both professionally employed abroad even

         prior to their marriage and, after solemnization of their marriage

         on 10.12.2006, continued to reside at different foreign locations,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
                                           18/20




         including Japan, China and Sweden. The record further

         discloses      that    the    couple      lived    in   foreign   countries

         independently from the petitioners who remained in India. There

         is no material to indicate that the petitioners had any physical

         proximity or day-to-day control over the matrimonial life of the

         couple. Moreover, the allegations contained in the F.I.R., when

         read in their entirety, predominantly relate to matrimonial

         discord between the spouses during their stay abroad and are

         general and omnibus in nature so far as the petitioners are

         concerned. Mere bald allegations of instigation are not sufficient

         to sustain criminal prosecution against aged parents residing

         separately. The marriage between O.P. No.2 and Avinash Jha

         (son of the petitioners) stood dissolved by a decree of divorce

         dated 29.08.2014 passed by the Gävle District Court in Sweden

         with the consent of both parties, whose validity has been

         challenged in a separate proceeding. After about two years of

         the said divorce judgment passed by the Sweden Court, the

         criminal case against the petitioners and their son (Avinash Jha)

         was instituted in the year 2016. Accordingly, this Court holds

         that no prima facie case is made out with respect to the alleged

         offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and

         under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
                                           19/20




         petitioners and that the impugned order taking cognizance

         against the petitioners warrants interference by this Court in

         exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

                         21. Further, the materials on record do not disclose

         any     evidence       collected       during      investigation   showing

         involvement of the petitioners in the alleged acts of cruelty,

         misappropriation of streedhan or dowry demand. The charge-

         sheet appears to have been submitted against the petitioners

         without any independent corroboration of their alleged role.

         Having regard to the admitted fact that the couple was living

         independently abroad and the dispute essentially pertains to

         inter se matrimonial differences between the spouses, this Court

         is of the considered view that the judgment of the Hon’ble

         Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) squarely

         applies to the facts of this case. Therefore, it is neither expedient

         nor in the interest of justice to permit the present prosecution

         against the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of this

         case, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the

         petitioners, who are in advanced stage of their lives, would

         result in undue harassment and miscarriage of justice. The

         misuse of criminal justice machinery is a matter of profound

         concern.
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
                                                        20/20




                                      22. In view of the legal principles and factual

                      analysis recorded hereinabove and considering the nature of

                      allegation against the petitioners, this Court finds that the order

                      dated 23.04.2018 passed by the learned Magistrate, so far as the

                      petitioners are concerned, has been passed in a mechanical

                      manner without application of judicial mind and permitting the

                      criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioners would

                      amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

                                      23. Accordingly, the impugned order of cognizance

                      dated 23.04.2018 passed in Shastrinagar P.S. Case No.283 of

                      2016 by the learned Sub-Judge IV-cum-A.C.J.M., Patna qua the

                      petitioners is hereby quashed and set-aside..

                                      24. The present application is, accordingly,

                      allowed.

                                      25. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated

                      to the learned Trial Court forthwith.




                                               (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                03.02.2026
Uploading Date          10.02.2026
Transmission Date       10.02.2026