Patna High Court

Ramawati Devi and AnrversusState Of Bihar and Anr

Decided: 24 March 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

Holding

The order taking cognizance against the petitioners is unsustainable and the criminal proceedings against them are quashed.

Summary

The petitioners, a mother‑in‑law and brother‑in‑law, were charged under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act based on a FIR alleging dowry demand and cruelty by the complainant, who had married her husband by love marriage. The petitioners moved the High Court to quash the magistrate’s order taking cognizance, contending that the FIR contained only vague, general allegations and no specific acts attributable to them. The State argued that at the stage of taking cognizance a prima facie case need only be shown. The Court held that the allegations were omnibus, no prima facie case existed against the petitioners, and proceeding would amount to abuse of process. Consequently, the order of the Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate was set aside and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners were quashed. The order is limited to the petitioners and does not affect the trial of other accused.

Issues considered

Whether the magistrate could validly take cognizance against the mother‑in‑law and brother‑in‑law on the basis of vague, general allegations under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Whether the FIR and investigation material disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners.
Whether the proceeding constitutes an abuse of process warranting quash under the inherent powers of the High Court.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

Section 498A
Dowry Prohibition Act
maternity dispute
quash of criminal proceeding
abuse of process
inherent jurisdiction
Section 482 CrPC
prima facie case
vague allegations

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32799 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-258 Year-2015 Thana- MALSALAMI District- Patna
======================================================
1. Ramawati Devi, W/o Late Nand Kishore Giri,
2. Deepak Giri, S/o Late Nand Kishore Giri, Both R/o Mohalla- Bari Nagla,
P.S.- Malsalami, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Radha Giri, W/o Prakash Kumar Giri, R/o Mohalla- Bari Nagla, P.S.-
Malsalami, District- Patna.

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nachiketa Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Priya Saran Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER

9 24-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as

learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been filed on behalf of

the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 19.08.2016

passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna

City (hereinafter referred to as ‘Magistrate’) arising out of

Malsalami P.S. Case No. 258 of 2015 wherein cognizance for

offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’) and under Sections 3 and 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has been taken against the

petitioners, who are mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the

O.P. No.2, and also against Prakash Giri (husband of O.P.No.2).
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32799 of 2018(9) dt.24-03-2026
2/11

3. The facts of the case, in brief, is that the informant,

namely Radha Giri (O.P. No.2), had solemnized a love marriage

with her husband, Prakash Kumar Giri, initially in a temple and

subsequently through court marriage, and thereafter went to her

matrimonial home where she lived for some time. It is alleged

that after a certain period, the accused persons, including the

present petitioners, subjected her to cruelty and harassment on

account of demand of dowry, specifically a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs

and a motorcycle, and ultimately ousted her from the

matrimonial home along with her child. On the basis of the said

allegations, the aforesaid police case was instituted and, upon

investigation, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate.

4. On the basis of the said allegations, the learned

Magistrate, vide impugned order dated 19.08.2016, took

cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 498A of

the I.P.C., and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act against the three accused persons, namely, Ramawati Devi

(Petitioner No.1), Prakash Giri (husband of O.P. No.2) and

Deepak Giri (Petitioner No.2). Subsequently, charges were

framed against the three accused persons under Sections 3 and 4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. Petitioners, being aggrieved by the said order of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32799 of 2018(9) dt.24-03-2026
3/11

cognizance against them, have preferred this application praying

to quash the impugned order dated 19.08.2016 passed against

them.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

impugned order taking cognizance is wholly unsustainable in

the eyes of law, inasmuch as the allegations made in the F.I.R.

and the materials collected during investigation do not disclose

the commission of any offence against the present petitioners. It

is submitted that the entire prosecution case is based on vague,

general and omnibus allegations of demand of dowry, without

attributing any specific act to either of the petitioners and in

absence of such specific allegations, the continuation of the

criminal proceeding amounts to abuse of the process of the

court.

7. Learned counsel further submits that Petitioner

No.1, being the mother-in-law of the O.P. No.2, is an aged lady

of more than 70 years and is not even in a position to carry out

her day-to-day activities, whereas Petitioner No.2 is the elder

brother-in-law (Bhaisur), who has been roped in only on

account of his relationship with the husband of the informant.

Learned counsel submits that the O.P. No.2 had admittedly

solemnized a love marriage of her own volition and was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32799 of 2018(9) dt.24-03-2026
4/11

residing separately with her husband and children, and

therefore, the question of any persistent demand of dowry or

cruelty by the petitioners does not arise. Learned counsel

submits that implication of the petitioners is thus malicious and

motivated, at the instance of the O.P. No.2 parental family.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly submits

that even if the entire allegations made in the F.I.R. are taken at

their face value, no prima facie case under Section 498A of the

Indian Penal Code or Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act is made out against the petitioners. He submits that the

learned Magistrate has erred in taking cognizance mechanically

without proper application of judicial mind, and therefore, this

is a fit case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court to

prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of

justice.

9. Per contra, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State

has submitted that at the stage of taking cognizance, a

meticulous examination of evidence is not required and the

Court is only to see whether a prima facie case is made out from

the materials available on record and the impugned order does

not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its

inherent jurisdiction.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32799 of 2018(9) dt.24-03-2026
5/11

10. Despite valid service of notice upon O.P. No. 2,

none has appeared on her behalf to contest the present

application. Accordingly, the matter has been heard in absence

of Opposite Party No. 2.

11. At this stage, it is well settled that in cases arising

out of matrimonial disputes, the Court is under a duty to

carefully scrutinize the allegations made in the complaint/F.I.R.

so as to ascertain, prima facie, whether they disclose any

element of truth or are merely intended to implicate the relatives

of the husband in a criminal proceeding. Where the allegations

are found to be vague, general and omnibus in nature, without

any specific attribution of overt acts, the Court must exercise

caution and prevent misuse of the criminal process.

12. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32799 of 2018(9) dt.24-03-2026
6/11

the number of genuine cases of dowry
harassment is also a matter of serious
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32799 of 2018(9) dt.24-03-2026
7/11

dealing with matrimonial cases. The
allegations of harassment of husband's 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.”

13. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32799 of 2018(9) dt.24-03-2026
8/11

and set aside. Their Lordships observed
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.”

14. 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32799 of 2018(9) dt.24-03-2026
9/11

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
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)

15. Upon consideration of the entire materials on

record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties,

this Court finds that the allegations made in the F.I.R. against

the present petitioners are general and omnibus in nature. The

petitioners, being the mother-in-law and elder brother-in-law of

the informant (O.P. No.2), appear to have been implicated only

on account of their relationship with the husband of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32799 of 2018(9) dt.24-03-2026
10/11

informant (O.P. No.2). In absence of specific and prima facie

material against them, continuation of the criminal proceeding

would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

16. It is well settled that criminal proceedings arising

out of matrimonial disputes, particularly under Section 498A of

the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act require careful scrutiny, and the relatives of the

husband should not be roped in on the basis of vague and bald

allegations. In the present case, even if the allegations are taken

at their face value, no prima facie case is made out against the

petitioners so as to justify their prosecution.

17. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view

that the impugned order dated 19.08.2016 passed by the learned

Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, in Malsalami

P.S. Case No.258 of 2015, so far as it relates to the present

petitioners, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to

be set aside.

18. Resultantly, the same is hereby set aside and the

entire criminal proceeding stands quashed qua the present

petitioners.

19. It is further clarified that the observations made

hereinabove are confined to the adjudication of the present
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32799 of 2018(9) dt.24-03-2026
11/11

application for quashing and shall not be construed as an

expression on the merits of the case against the other accused

person and the learned court concerned shall proceed

independently and uninfluenced by any observation made in this

order, in accordance with law. The application stands allowed to

the extent indicated above.

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

learned court concerned forthwith.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
ritik/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…