Patna High Court
Rampreet SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The complaint is vague and lacks specific allegations, constituting an abuse of process; therefore, the order and the criminal proceedings are quashed.
Summary
The petitioners sought to quash an order dated 14‑12‑2023 of the SDJM, Bikramganj, which had taken cognizance of offences under IPC §§504, 323 and 498A against them based on a complaint alleging dowry demands, assault and other cruelty. The High Court observed that the complaint contained only vague, omnibus allegations without specific dates, times, places or particulars linking the petitioners to the alleged acts. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dara Laxmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2025) 3 SCC 735, the Court held that such unspecific accusations amount to an abuse of the legal process. Consequently, the Court found no prima facie case against the petitioners and declared the order and the ensuing criminal proceedings null and void. The application for quash was allowed and the order dated 14‑12‑2023 was set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether the complaint/FIR, containing vague and unspecific allegations, is sufficient to sustain criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
- Whether proceeding under IPC §§504, 323 and 498A in the present case constitutes an abuse of process.
- Whether the order dated 14‑12‑2023 taking cognizance of the offences should be quashed.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A, 504
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- criminal procedure
- quash order
- abuse of process
- Section 498A
- vague complaint
- domestic violence
- Indian Penal Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35842 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-849 Year-2023 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE District-
Rohtas
======================================================
1. Rampreet Singh S/o Ram Sakal Singh RESIDENT OF VILLAGE USARA
POLICE STATION SANJHAULI DISTRICT ROHTAS
2. Rita Devi W/o Gupteshwar Singh @ Munna Singh RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE USARA POLICE STATION SANJHAULI DISTRICT ROHTAS
3. Sumit Singh @ Sumit Kumar S/o Gupteshwar Singh @ Munna Singh
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE USARA POLICE STATION SANJHAULI
DISTRICT ROHTAS
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Manju Devi W/o Sidheshwar Singh, D/o Awdhesh Kumar Singh R/o vill -
Patrawal, P.O. - Natwar, P.S. - Bikramganj, Distt. - Rohtas
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Harendra Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nagendra Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Maya Shankar Mishra, Adv.
For the State : Mrs.Sharda Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 and learned A.P.P.
for the State.
2. The petitioners have made the following prayer in
this application :-
“That this is an application for quashing
of the order dated 14.12.2023 passed in
Complaint Case No. 849 of 2023 by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35842 of 2024(3) dt.09-02-2026
2/6
learned Court of S.D.J.M., Bikaramganj,
Rohtas by which the learned Court below
has been pleased to take the cognizance
the offences under Sections 504, 323,
498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and
further issued the summons to the
petitioners.”
3. This Court finds that with general and omnibus
allegation levelled against the petitioners, the present case has
been lodged. It has further been observed that the petitioner no.
1 happens to be the father-in-law and is presently 70 years of
age and it has further been alleged that all the accused persons
used to demand dowry and assaulted and even tortured the
complainant/ O.P. No. 2. From the averments made in the
complaint, an allegation of demand of laptop and motorcycle
etc., have been made. However, no specific dates of this
allegation have been levelled against the accused persons and an
allegation of illicit relationship with the accused no. 3/ petitioner
no. 2 have been made and from perusal of the complaint, it
transpires that no specific averments with regard to the
petitioner no. 3 has been made in the entire complaint.
4. It is well settled law as decided by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Dara Laxmi Narayana vs. State
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35842 of 2024(3) dt.09-02-2026
3/6
of Telangana reported in (2025) 3 SCC 735, wherein it has
been held that the complaint/ F.I.R. are lodged with an ulterior
motive only to settle personal score and vengeance against the
husband and the entire family members of the accused with
vague and omnibus allegation without giving specific details
including the date, time, place or manner of occurrence of the
alleged occurrence. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the
judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Dara Laxmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana reported in
(2025) 3 SCC 735, wherein it was observed :-
27. A mere reference to the names of family
members in a criminal case arising out of a
matrimonial dispute, without specific
allegations indicating their active involvement
should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-
recognised fact, borne out of judicial
experience, that there is often a tendency to
implicate all the members of the husband's
family when domestic disputes arise out of a
matrimonial discord. Such generalised and
sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete
evidence or particularised allegations cannot
form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35842 of 2024(3) dt.09-02-2026
4/6
must exercise caution in such cases to prevent
misuse of legal provisions and the legal process
and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent
family members. In the present case, Appellants
2 to 6, who are the members of the family of
Appellant 1 have been living in. different cities
and have not resided in the matrimonial house
of Appellant 1 and Respondent 2 herein. Hence,
they cannot be dragged into criminal
prosecution and the same would be an abuse of
the process of the law in the absence of specific
allegations made against each of them.
30. The inclusion of Section 498-A IPC by way
of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty
inflicted on a woman by her husband and his
family, ensuring swift intervention by the State.
However, in recent years, as there have been a
notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the
country, accompanied by growing discord and
tension within the institution of marriage,
consequently. there has been a growing
tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498-
A IPC as a tool for unleashing personal
vendetta against the husband and his family by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35842 of 2024(3) dt.09-02-2026
5/6
a wife. Making vague and generalised
allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not
scrutinised, will lead to the misuse of legal
processes and an encouragement for use of
arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her
family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke
Section 498-A IPC against the husband and his
family in order to seek compliance with the
unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently,
this Court has, time and again, cautioned
against. prosecuting the husband and his
family in the absence of a clear prima facie
case against them.
31. We are not, for a moment, stating that any
woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of
what has been contemplated under Section
498-A IPC should remain silent and forbear
herself from making a complaint or initiating
any criminal proceeding. That is not the
intention of our aforesaid observations but we
should not encourage a case like as in the
present one, where as a counterblast to the
petition for dissolution of marriage sought by
the first appellant, husband of the second
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35842 of 2024(3) dt.09-02-2026
6/6
respondent herein, a complaint under Section
498-A IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the
insertion of the said a provision is meant
mainly for the protection of a woman who is
subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home
primarily due to an unlawful demand for any
property or valuable security in the form of
dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in
the present case.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 14.12.2023
as well as the entire criminal proceeding arising out of
Complaint Case No. 849 of 2023, is, hereby, quashed as against
the petitioners.
9. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Gautam/-
U T
Checking your session…