Patna High Court

Vijay Kumar JhaversusState Of Bihar and Anr

Decided: 26 March 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

Holding

The Court held that the complaint does not disclose a prima facie case and the proceeding is an abuse of process, thus quashing the criminal proceedings.

Summary

Vijay Kumar Jha filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash a criminal complaint filed by his former wife, Amita Devi, alleging cruelty, dowry demand, assault and fraud. The parties had obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent on 10 October 2012, which became final on 1 November 2012. The complaint was lodged on 4 March 2013 and the Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance under IPC Sections 498A, 323, 417, 465, 468 and 34. The High Court examined whether the allegations, being vague and filed after a final divorce, disclosed a prima facie case and whether the proceeding was an abuse of process. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the complaint did not make out any offence, Section 498A does not apply post‑divorce, and the proceeding was frivolous and vexatious. Accordingly, the order of cognizance was quashed and the criminal proceeding dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the criminal complaint under Sections 498A, 323, 417, 465, 468 and 34 IPC is maintainable after a decree of divorce by mutual consent.
Whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a prima facie case of any offence.
Whether the proceeding amounts to an abuse of process warranting quash under Section 482 CrPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 417, 465, 468, 498A

Subjects

Section 482 CrPC
Section 498A IPC
abuse of process
quash of criminal proceeding
divorce by mutual consent
maternity dispute
dowry harassment
high court jurisdiction

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35253 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-402 Year-2013 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE
District- Begusarai
======================================================
Vijay Kumar Jha, Son of Late Sitaram Jha, Resident of Village- Chilhai,
Police Station- Teghra, District Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Srimati Amita Devi, Former wife, of Sri Vijay Kumar, resident of Chilhai,
Police Station- Teghra, District Begusarai, Address Daughter of Sri
Prabhunandan Jha, resident of Ghataho, Police Station Ghataho, District
Samastipur. Presently Wife of Sewak Ram @ Chhotu Ram, Son of Premi
Ram, resident of Village- Varanda, Police Station Ujiarpur, District
Samastipur.

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dinesh Maharaj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER

11 26-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been filed under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for

quashing the order dated 12.02.2014 passed by learned Sub-

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai (hereinafter referred

to as ‘Magistrate’) in Complaint Case No.402C of 2013 where

in the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under

Sections 498A, 323, 417, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

against the present petitioner and other accused persons.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35253 of 2018(11) dt.26-03-2026
2/12

3. The facts of the case, in brief, as alleged in the

complaint instituted by O.P. No.2, Amita Devi, is that her

marriage with the petitioner was solemnized in accordance with

Hindu rites and rituals and sufficient dowry was given as per

capacity of her parental family. It is alleged that she was

subjected to cruelty and assault and was earlier driven out of her

matrimonial home on 09.01.2010, whereafter she had instituted

Complaint Case No. 34 of 2010. Subsequently, a compromise

was entered into between the parties on 29.08.2011, pursuant to

which she resumed cohabitation at her matrimonial home.

However, it is further alleged that she was again subjected to

cruelty and a demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- was made by the

accused persons, accompanied by threats to her life and that of

her family members. It is also alleged that she was coerced into

signing certain papers and was compelled to depose in favour of

the accused persons before the Family Court. It is further the

case of the complainant (O.P. No.2) that despite an order dated

10.10.2012 passed by the learned Family Court, Begusarai, the

accused persons continued to harass her and ultimately drove

her out of the matrimonial home after reiterating the demand of

money. O.P. No.2 has also alleged that the petitioner and his

family members, in furtherance of a conspiracy, fraudulently
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35253 of 2018(11) dt.26-03-2026
3/12

obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent by exercising

coercion and deceit. On the basis of the said allegations, the

Complaint Case No.402C of 2013 came to be instituted.

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

Magistrate, after examination of O.P. No.2 on solemn

affirmation and inquiry, vide impugned order dated 12.02.2014,

took cognizance for the offences punishable under Section

498A, 323, 417, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the

petitioner herein and the other accused persons. Petitioner, being

aggrieved by the said order of cognizance against him, has

preferred this application praying to quash the impugned order

dated 12.02.2014 passed against him.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

entire criminal proceeding is a gross abuse of the process of law

and has been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to

harass the petitioner. He submits that the marriage between the

petitioner and O.P. No.2 already stood dissolved by a decree of

divorce by mutual consent passed by the learned Principal

Judge, Family Court, Begusarai vide judgment dated 10.10.2012

and final order dated 01.11.2012. It is further submitted that the

Complaint Case No. 402C of 2013 has been filed thereafter on

04.03.2013, clearly indicating that the same is an afterthought
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35253 of 2018(11) dt.26-03-2026
4/12

and has been instituted with oblique motives, devoid of any

genuine cause of action.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

that even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at

their face value, no offence under Sections 498A, 323, 417, 465,

468/34 of the Indian Penal Code is prima facie made out against

the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the allegations are

omnibus, vague and lack specific particulars with respect to

time, place and manner of occurrence. It is submitted that once

the relationship of husband and wife had already come to an end

by virtue of a decree of divorce by mutual consent, the

continuation of prosecution under Section 498A of the Indian

Penal Code is not legally tenable. He submits that the

allegations relating to cheating and forgery are wholly

unsustainable in absence of any challenge to the decree passed

by the competent Family Court.

7. Learned counsel next submits that the O.P. No.2

has voluntarily entered into the compromise earlier and

thereafter sought divorce by mutual consent, which was granted

by the competent court after due consideration. It is submitted

that she has subsequently remarried and is living her life

independently having two children from the present wedlock,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35253 of 2018(11) dt.26-03-2026
5/12

and the present complaint case has been filed only to exert

pressure upon the petitioner and to extract money. Learned

counsel for the petitioners further submits that the learned

Magistrate, without proper application of judicial mind

mechanically took cognizance against the petitioner. Learned

counsel thus submits that allowing the criminal proceeding to

continue would result in grave miscarriage of justice and,

therefore, the impugned order taking cognizance is fit to be

quashed in the interest of justice.

8. Learned APP appearing for the State conceded that

marriage of petitioner with O.P No.2 has already been dissolved

long back i.e. on 10.10.2012 by the learned Family Court,

Begusarai and Complaint case has been filed later on in year

2013.

9. Despite valid service of notice and sufficient

opportunities granted by this Court, none appears on behalf of

O.P. No.2 to contest the present application. Accordingly, this

Court proceeds to decide the matter in absence of any

representation on her behalf.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned APP for the State, and upon perusal of the materials

available on record, this Court proceeds to examine as to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35253 of 2018(11) dt.26-03-2026
6/12

whether the continuation of the criminal proceeding would

amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

11. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court

is required to examine whether the uncontroverted allegations

made in the complaint and the materials brought on record

disclose the commission of any offence. If the allegations are so

absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can

ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for

proceeding, or where the proceeding is manifestly attended with

mala fide and has been instituted with an ulterior motive for

wreaking vengeance, the same is liable to be quashed to secure

the ends of justice.

12. At this stage, it is apposite to reproduce some

relevant paragraphs of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in

(2023) 16 SCC 666 with respect to the contours of the power to

quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

The Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:

“16. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35253 of 2018(11) dt.26-03-2026
7/12

may now take note of some decisions of
particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan
Kausar v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC
599], this Court had occasion to deal with a
similar situation where the High Court had
refused [Mohd. Ikram v. State of Bihar, 2019
SCC OnLine Pat 1985] to quash an FIR
registered for various offences, including
Section 498-AIPC. 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
concern was expressed over the misuse of
Section 498-AIPC 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.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
19. Of more recent origin is the decision of
this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P.
[(2023) 15 SCC 488] on the legal principles
applicable apropos Section 482 CrPC.
Therein, it was observed that when an
accused comes before the High Court,
invoking either the inherent power under
Section 482 CrPC or the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35253 of 2018(11) dt.26-03-2026
8/12

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.”

13. 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.35253 of 2018(11) dt.26-03-2026
9/12

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)

14. Upon a careful scrutiny of the complaint petition

and the materials brought on record, this Court finds that the

allegations levelled by O.P. No.2 are largely general and

omnibus in nature as to the exact role of the petitioner in the

alleged acts of cruelty, assault or demand of dowry. It further

appears that the matrimonial dispute between the parties had

already culminated in a decree of divorce by mutual consent

passed by the competent Family Court on 10.10.2012, which

attained finality in absence of any challenge. The institution of

the present complaint thereafter on 04.03.2013, without raising

any objection to the said decree before an appropriate forum,

creates serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the

allegations, particularly those relating to coercion, fraud and

forgery in obtaining the decree.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35253 of 2018(11) dt.26-03-2026
10/12

15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad

Miyan and Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.,

(Criminal Appeal No.1048 of 2018) has observed with respect

to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as under:

“Section 498A of the IPC opens
with the words “Whoever, being the husband
or the relative of the husband of a
woman….” Therefore, where the
complainant approaches with a case that
there has been a divorce long back i.e. four
years ago before filing of the FIR, section
498A of IPC in terms would not be attracted.
We accordingly consider it appropriate to
quash the prosecution against all the
accused persons under section 498A of
IPC……..”

16. Moreover, from the sequence of events, it

transpires that the parties had earlier entered into a compromise

and thereafter consciously approached the Family Court for

dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, which presupposes

free will and voluntary participation of both sides. In such

circumstances, the subsequent allegations of demand of money,

cruelty and fraudulent procurement of divorce appear to be

inherently improbable and unsupported by any cogent material.

This Court also finds that the essential ingredients of the

offences under Sections 417, 465 and 468 IPC are not prima

facie made out, as there is no material to demonstrate deception

or fabrication of documents in the manner alleged. In view of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35253 of 2018(11) dt.26-03-2026
11/12

the above, the continuation of the criminal proceeding against

the petitioner appears to be an abuse of the process of law.

17. Now, the law with respect to quashing of criminal

proceeding is now 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.

18. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations made in

the complaint, even if taken at their face value, do not prima

facie make out a case warranting criminal prosecution against

the petitioner, and the continuation of the proceeding would

amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly,

this Court finds that the present case is a fit one for exercise of

inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for securing the ends of justice.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35253 of 2018(11) dt.26-03-2026
12/12

19. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.

The impugned order dated 12.02.2014 passed by the learned

Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in Complaint

Case No. 402C of 2013, whereby cognizance has been taken

against the petitioner under Sections 498A, 323, 417, 465,

468/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and the entire criminal

proceeding arising therefrom qua the petitioner, presently

pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Teghra, Begusarai, is hereby quashed.

20. The present application stands allowed.

21. The Interim Order granting stay of proceeding of

Complaint case No.402C of 2013 is vacated.

22. Let a copy of this Order be communicated to the

court concerned forthwith for information and necessary

compliance.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…