Patna High Court
SAJJAN PANDEY @ VISHNU PANDEY @ VISHNU KUMAR PANDEYversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that the order of cognizance against petitioners 1‑3 was unsustainable and quashed it, as they were not directly involved in any dowry demand and faced only general allegations.
Summary
The petitioners filed an application to quash the order of cognizance dated 06.01.2021, which had taken cognizance of offences under several IPC sections and the Dowry Prohibition Act against them. They contended that there were no specific allegations against petitioners 1‑3 and that the dowry demand allegations were false. The court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that deprecate false implication of relatives in matrimonial disputes, found that the lower court had taken cognizance without applying its mind and that the allegations against petitioners 1‑3 were general and omnibus. Consequently, the application was partly allowed and the order of cognizance, along with all consequential proceedings, was quashed against petitioners 1‑3. The proceedings against petitioner 4 were left to continue. The order was communicated to the Principal District & Sessions Judge for compliance.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of cognizance against petitioners 1‑3 is valid in view of the lack of specific allegations and only general/omnibus allegations.
- Whether the petitioners can obtain quash of proceedings under the IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether Supreme Court jurisprudence on false implication in matrimonial disputes applies to the present case.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 498A, 504, 506/34
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- false implication
- quash of cognizance
- IPC offences
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- matrimonial dispute
- partial relief
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35774 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
1. Sajjan Pandey @ Vishnu Pandey @ Vishnu Kumar Pandey Son Of Late
Ganesh Prasad Pandey Resident Of Mohalla- Laluchak Angari, Police
Station- Lodipur, District- Bhagalpur.
2. Nisha Pandey Wife Of Sajjan Pandey @ Vishnu Pandey Resident Of
Mohalla- Laluchak Angari, Police Station- Lodipur, District- Bhagalpur.
3. Vimla Pandey Wife Of Late Ganesh Prasad Pandey Resident Of Mohalla-
Laluchak Angari, Police Station- Lodipur, District- Bhagalpur.
4. Vishwajit Kumar Dhavak Son Of Ganesh Prasad Pandey Resident Of Shiv
Sai Nagar, Road No.1, Dela Toli, Kokar, P.O.- Bariyatu, P.S.- Sadar, District-
Ranchi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Anupam Dhavak Wife Of Vishwajit Kumar Dhavak, Daughter Of Digambar
Pandey Resident Of Chatrapati Talab, Shitla Asthan, Mirjanhat, P.S.-
Mojahidpur, District- Bhagalpur, Bihar, Pin- 812001.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
8 03-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the State. Despite valid service of notice,
none has appeared on behalf of the O.P. No. 2.
2. This application has been filed on behalf of the
petitioners to quash the order dated 06.01.2021 passed in Mahila
P.S. Case No. 21 of 2020 by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-II, Bhagalpur, whereby cognizance was
taken for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 498A, 504,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35774 of 2021(8) dt.03-02-2026
2/4
506/34 of the IPC, and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
against the petitioners.
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
dowry demand.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the
petitioners prays for and is permitted to withdraw this
application filed on behalf of petitioner no. 4 with liberty to
raise the grounds at an appropriate stage.
5. Accordingly, the application filed on behalf of the
petitioner no. 4 is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid
liberty. If such an application is filed, the same shall be
considered by the Court below and a reasoned order shall be
passed in accordance with law and in view of the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanchan Kumar
Vs. The State of Bihar reported in (2022) 9 SCC 577.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that so far as petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned,
there is no specific allegation against them. He further submits
that the petitioners never demanded dowry and the allegations
levelled against the petitioners are false.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35774 of 2021(8) dt.03-02-2026
3/4
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits
that the Court below passed the impugned order of cognizance
without application of mind and took the cognizance against all
the accused persons including the petitioners. He further
submits that there are general and omnibus allegations against
the petitioner no. 1 to 3.
8. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the prayer.
9. 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.
11. Considering the aforesaid facts and the fact that
the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 are not directly involved in the demand
of dowry and there is general and omnibus allegation against
them, this application is allowed with respect to them.
12. Accordingly, this application is partly allowed and
the order dated 06.01.2021 passed in Mahila P.S. Case No. 21 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35774 of 2021(8) dt.03-02-2026
4/4
2020 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II,
Bhagalpur and all consequential proceedings arising out of the
aforesaid FIR are hereby quashed against the petitioner nos. 1 to
3.
13. The proceedings with regard to petitioner no. 4
shall continue.
14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur through FAX for
its compliance forthwith.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…