Patna High Court
Prabhakar Swami and AnrversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The order of cognizance dated 9 June 2016 is quashed with respect to the petitioners.
Summary
Petitioners Prabhakar Swami and Babbli Swami filed an application to set aside the order of cognizance dated 9 June 2016 in Complaint Case No. 488C of 2015, which alleged that they, along with other accused, tortured and ousted the complainant from her matrimonial home over a dowry dispute. They contended that they are merely the brother‑in‑law and wife of the complainant’s husband and had no role in demanding dowry, arguing that the magistrate took cognizance without applying mind and that the allegations are false. The State opposed the petition. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents that condemn the false implication of relatives in matrimonial disputes. Finding that the petitioners were not directly involved in any dowry demand, the Court quashed the order of cognizance as it applied to them, while allowing proceedings against the other co‑accused to continue.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of cognizance against the petitioners is valid when they are not directly involved in the alleged dowry demand.
- Whether the magistrate exercised sufficient judicial discretion and applied mind in taking cognizance of the petitioners.
- Whether Supreme Court jurisprudence on false implication of relatives in matrimonial disputes applies to quash the order.
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- false implication
- order of cognizance
- quash order
- magistrate discretion
- maternity dispute
- criminal miscellaneous
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3374 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-488 Year-2015 Thana- MUNGER COMPLAINT CASE
District- Munger
======================================================
1. Prabhakar Swami S/o Puttu Lal Swami.
2. Babbli Swami @ Sarita Swami, W/o Prabhakar Swami, Both resident of
House No. 1 Sarda Nagar, Patan Road, Karmeta, P.S. Maro Taal, P.O. Gumti,
District- Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar
2. Ratanpriya Swami, W/o Manish Swami, D/o Ajay Kumar Swami, R/o
Mohalla- Purab Sarai Phadi, P.S.- Kotwali, P.O District- Munger.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Sinha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sri Jharkhandi Upadhyay
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
9 13-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. This application has been filed on behalf of the
petitioners for setting aside/quashing the order of cognizance
dated 9.6.2016 passed in Complaint Case No. 488C of 2015
passed by the learned SDJM, Munger.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners along
with other co-accused persons are said to have tortured and
ousted the opposite party no.2 from her matrimonial home over
non-fulfillment of dowry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner no. 1 is the brother-in-law (Bahisur) of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3374 of 2017(9) dt.13-01-2026
2/3
complainant and petitioner no. 02 is the wife of petitioner no. 1
and there is general and omnibus allegation against them.
5. 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 petitioners have never
demanded dowry or assaulted the opposite party no.2 and the
allegations made against them are false.
6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the
prayer of the petitioners.
7. 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.
8. Considering the fact that the petitioners are the
family members of the husband of the complainant and they are
not directly involved in the demand of dowry, this application is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3374 of 2017(9) dt.13-01-2026
3/3
allowed.
9. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated
9.6.2016 passed in Complaint Case No. 488C of 2015 by the
learned SDJM, Munger, is hereby quashed with regard to the
petitioners only.
10. The proceedings with regard to other co-accused
persons shall continue.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Vikas/-
U
Checking your session…