Patna High Court
MURSHID ALAMversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The order taking cognizance against the petitioners was an abuse of process and is quashed as against petitioners 1‑4.
Summary
The petitioners, comprising the husband, his wife, and two daughters, filed an application to quash the order dated 14 September 2020 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, which had taken cognizance against them under IPC sections 504, 506, 498A/34 and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3 and 4. They contended that the allegations of dowry demand and cruelty were vague, general and that the relatives were maliciously implicated without specific acts. The State opposed, claiming a prima facie case existed. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents (Kahkashan Kausar (2022), Preeti Gupta (2010) and Dara Lakshmi Narayana (2025)), held that family members cannot be prosecuted under Section 498A without specific allegations and that proceeding against them amounted to an abuse of process. Consequently, the court quashed the order as against petitioners 1‑4 and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether the order taking cognizance against the petitioners under IPC 504, 506, 498A/34 and Dowry Act 3/4 is legally valid.
- Whether relatives of the husband can be prosecuted under Section 498A of the IPC without specific allegations of cruelty.
- Whether the order should be quashed on the ground of abuse of process and miscarriage of justice.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- Section 498A
- Domestic Violence
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- Abuse of Process
- Quash Order
- Family Members Liability
- Criminal Procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3566 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-282 Year-2019 Thana- GAYA KOTWALI District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Murshid Alam Son Of Abdul Mazid Resident Of Village - Samdani Gali,
River Side3, Panchaiyiya Akahra, P.S.- Kotwali, Distt.- Gaya.
2. Hasbun Nisa W/O Murshid Alam Resident Of Village - Samdani Gali, River
Side3, Panchaiyiya Akahra, P.S.- Kotwali, Distt.- Gaya.
3. Shabana Perween D/O Murshid Alam Resident Of Village - Samdani Gali,
River Side3, Panchaiyiya Akahra, P.S.- Kotwali, Distt.- Gaya.
4. Shereen Perween D/O Murshid Alam Resident Of Village - Samdani Gali,
River Side3, Panchaiyiya Akahra, P.S.- Kotwali, Distt.- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sufia Khadiza W/o Mobin Alam Resident of Village - Samdani Gali, River
Side3, Panchaiyiya Akahra, P.s.- Kotwali, Distt.- Gaya.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
: Mr. S. Hafaz Ahmad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madan Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
5 03-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State. However, no one appeared on behalf of the
opposite party no.2, despite valid service of notice.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing
of the order dated 14.09.2020 passed by the Court of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in G.R. No.3278/2019, arising
out of Gaya Kotwali P.S. Case No.282 of 2019, whereby
cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Sections
504, 506, 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3566 of 2022(5) dt.03-02-2026
2/5
3. The short facts of the case, as per the First
Information Report, is that after marriage of the informant with
son of petitioner no.1 on 25.12.2016, the demand for dowry and
torture began at the hands of all the accused persons including
the present petitioners.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that the case of Md. Mohiuddin Alam @ Pappu has
already been dismissed as withdrawn. Thus, this petition
survives only against petitioners no.1, 2, 3 and 4, i.e., the father-
in-law, mother-in-law and two married sisters-in-law
respectively.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case
under Section 498A of I.P.C. with general, omnibus and vague
allegations although the case only involved a matrimonial
discord between the husband and the wife and the falsity of the
case has been to the extent that the petitioners no.4 and 5, who
are not even residing along with opposite party no.2 have also
been maliciously arrayed as accused in the present case.
6. Learned APP for the State has opposed the present
application stating that a prima facie case has also been found
against the present petitioners, as such, there is no illegality with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3566 of 2022(5) dt.03-02-2026
3/5
the order taking cognizance.
7. Coming to the complicity of the present petitioners,
the allegations levelled against them of subjecting the informant
to cruelty is totally vague, general and sweeping in nature. It has
been laid down by way of catena of judgments that when family
relations are sought to be brought within the ambit of criminal
proceedings, the Court should be circumspect and judicious
and should allow invocation of criminal proceedings only when
there are specific allegation with supporting materials, which
clearly constitute criminal offences. Matters which per se relate
to matrimonial discord between the husband and the wife cannot
and ought not to be brought within ambit of Section 498A of the
I.P.C.. There is no doubt on the fact that importance has to be
given to the victims of domestic violence, but all the family
members and relatives ought not be brought within the ambit of
criminal proceeding if no specific case or act has been carved
out as against them.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kahkashan Kausar vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2022) 6 SCC
599, has considered all the earlier judgments right from the case of
Preeti Gupta and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.,
reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, laying down that all the members
and relatives of the family against whom no specific allegations
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3566 of 2022(5) dt.03-02-2026
4/5
have been carved out should not be prosecuted in a case under
Section 498A of I.P.C. as an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe
scars upon the accused.
9. Very recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Ors. v. State of Telangana
and Anr, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 735, has also reiterated the
fact that unnecessarily roping in of the family members and
relatives of the husband by the opposite party no.2 in absence of
specific accusation should not be allowed to continue and
continuance of such malicious prosecution would only amount to
an abuse of the process of the Court.
10. Taking the above-mentioned facts and
circumstances into account, going through the records of this case
and upon also considering the submissions made on behalf of the
petitioners, this Court, being conscious of the growing tendency of
implication of the other members of the family in a case under
Section 498A of I.P.C. carrying the potential danger of further
rupture of family bond, is of opinion that the complicity of the
present petitioners who are the relatives of the husband of the
opposite party no.2 should not be allowed to continue as the same
would amount to an abuse to the process of law and cause grave
miscarriage of justice, as such, the impugned order dated
14.09.2020 passed by the passed by the Court of learned Chief
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3566 of 2022(5) dt.03-02-2026
5/5
Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in G.R. No.3278/2019, arising out of
Gaya Kotwali P.S. Case No.282 of 2019, is hereby quashed as
against petitioners no.1, 2, 3 and 4.
11. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…