Patna High Court
Manohar Kumar @ Manohar Singh and OrsversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that petitioners No. 2, 3 and 5, being not immediate family members and not directly involved in the dowry demand, cannot be held liable under sections 498A and 34, and the order of cognizance against them is quashed.
Summary
The petitioners, comprising several members of a joint family, filed an application to set aside the order of cognizance dated 15‑02‑2016 taken by the Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur, under IPC sections 498A and 34 in a dowry‑harassment case. The prosecution alleged that after the marriage of Amrita Kumari, her husband and in‑laws demanded a gold chain and a cow as dowry, and when the demand could not be met, the family allegedly tortured and expelled her. Petitioners No. 2, 3 and 5 contended that they were not immediate family members and that the allegations against them were general and omnibus, with no direct involvement in the dowry demand. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that reject false implication of relatives in matrimonial disputes, held that the magistrate had not applied its mind in taking cognizance against these petitioners. Consequently, the court partially allowed the application, quashing the order of cognizance with respect to petitioners No. 2, 3 and 5, while vacating interim protection for petitioners No. 1, 4 and 6.
Issues considered
- Whether petitioners No. 2, 3 and 5, who are not immediate family members, can be held liable under IPC sections 498A and 34 based on general and omnibus allegations.
- Whether the Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate exercised jurisdiction correctly in taking cognizance against the petitioners.
- Whether the interim protection granted to petitioners No. 1, 4 and 6 should be vacated.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 498A
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- section 498A
- section 34
- cognizance
- omnibus allegation
- immediate family
- quash order
- interim protection
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33375 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-260 Year-2014 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Bhojpur
======================================================
1. Manohar Kumar @ Manohar Singh Son of Ram Ashish Singh
2. Bhim Kumar Singh @ Bhim Singh Son of Ram Ashish Singh
3. Krishna Murari @ Krishna Murari Singh Son of Ram Ashish Singh
4. Ram Ashish Singh Son of Late Tapeshwar Singh
5. Reena Devi wife of Bhim Singh
6. Kamala Devi wife of Ram Ashish Singh
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar
2. Amrita Kumari D/o Kameshwar Singh resident of Village- Ratnesh, Police
Station- Agiaon Gorohari Distt- Bhojpur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhaneshwar Prasad Gupta, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sri Gauri Shankar Gupta, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
20 13-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the State, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2.
2. After some arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioners prays for and is permitted to withdraw this
application on behalf of petitioner nos. 1, 4 and 6 with liberty to
the petitioner nos. 1, 4 and 6 to raise all the grounds at the stage
of framing of charge.
3. If such an application is filed, the same shall be
heard and considered by the learned court below in view of the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33375 of 2016(20) dt.13-01-2026
2/4
Kanchan Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2022) 9 SCC
577 and a reasoned order shall be passed.
4. The interim protection, if any, granted to the
petitioner nos. 1, 4 and 6, is hereby vacated.
5. Let a copy of this order be communicated to
Principal District Judge, Bhojpur at Ara through FAX so that the
case will proceed further.
6. This application has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 5 for setting aside/quashing the order of
cognizance dated 15.02.2016 by which the Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara took cognizance under
Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4
against the petitioners in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.
260 of 2014/ Tr. No. 4354/2016.
7. As per the prosecution case, the informant alleged
that after marriage on 14.09.2008, her husband and in-laws
demanded one Golden Chain and a Cow as dowry. When her
father could not fulfill the demand due to financial constraints,
the in-law family members tortured and assaulted her, and
ultimately expelled her from the matrimonial house in February
2014.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 5 are not the immediate members of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33375 of 2016(20) dt.13-01-2026
3/4
family and there is general and omnibus allegation against them.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits
that the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order of
cognizance without application of mind and has taken
cognizance against all the accused persons including the
petitioners. He further submits that the petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 5
had never demanded dowry or assaulted the opposite party no.2
and the allegations made against them are false.
10. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the
prayer of the petitioners.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti
Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr reported in (2010)
7 SCC 667, in the case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam Vs.
State of Bihar reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 and in the case of
Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana & Anr reported in 2024
SCC Online SC 759 has deprecated the practice of falsely
implicating the relatives of the husband in a matrimonial
dispute.
12. Considering the fact that the petitioner nos. 2, 3
and 5 are not the immediate members of the family and there is
general and omnibus allegations against the petitioner nos. 2, 3
and 5 and they are not directly involved in the demand of dowry,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33375 of 2016(20) dt.13-01-2026
4/4
this application is allowed with respect to only petitioner nos. 2,
3 and 5.
13. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated dated
15.02.2016 by which the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Bhojpur at Ara took cognizance against the petitioners in
connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 260 of 2014/ Tr. No.
4354/2016 is hereby quashed with regard to the petitioner nos.
2, 3 and 5 only.
14. This application stands partly allowed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U T
Checking your session…