Patna High Court
Sabita Devi and AnrversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The High Court held that the trial court failed to appreciate the lack of specific allegations and therefore discharged the petitioners, quashing further proceedings.
Summary
The petitioners, Sabita Devi and Parshuram Rai, sought discharge under Section 239 of the CrPC from a criminal case filed by their daughter‑in‑law Bandana Kumari alleging cruelty, dowry demand and offences under the IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial court had rejected the discharge petition, finding sufficient grounds to proceed. The petitioners argued that the informant never resided in their matrimonial home, that the marriage was a love marriage without their consent, and that the allegations were vague, omnibus and motivated by a family dispute. The High Court examined the material on record and, applying principles from Supreme Court judgments on quashing frivolous proceedings, held that the allegations against the in‑laws were not specific and were improbable. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court’s order, discharged the petitioners and quashed any further proceedings against them.
Issues considered
- Whether the materials on record disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners sufficient to deny discharge under Section 239 CrPC.
- Whether the allegations against the petitioners are specific and credible or constitute vague, omnibus accusations arising from a matrimonial dispute.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 239, 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- Section 239 discharge
- Section 498A
- Dowry harassment
- False implication
- Omnibus allegations
- Quash criminal proceedings
- Matrimonial dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36793 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2016 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Banka
======================================================
1. Sabita Devi, Wife of Parshuram Rai
2. Parshuram Rai, Son of Late Hari Prasad Rai, Both are resident of Village-
English, P.S. Amarpur, District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bandana Kumari, Wife of Jitendra Rai, Daughter of Suraj Rai, resident of
Village- English, P.S. Amarpur, District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
6 26-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned APP for the State.
2. The present application has been preferred by the
petitioners for quashing the order dated 22.05.2018 passed by
the learned S.D.J.M., Banka (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial
Court’) in connection with G.R. No.69 of 2016 arising out of
Banka Mahila P.S. Case No.03 of 2016 wherein the petition
dated 07.10.2017 filed by the petitioners herein under Section
239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) for their discharge was dismissed by the
learned Trial Court.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, as per the written
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36793 of 2018(6) dt.26-03-2026
2/10
report of the informant, Smt. Bandana Kumari (O.P. No.2), is
that she was married to Jitendra Rai about three years prior to
the institution of the case. After marriage, she resided with her
husband at Delhi, where he was employed in a private company,
and during this period she became pregnant. Subsequently, she
was brought to her matrimonial village, where it is alleged that
the accused persons, including the present petitioners, who are
her mother-in-law (petitioner no.1) and father-in-law (petitioner
no.2), subjected her to cruelty, assaulted her on trivial issues,
and demanded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as dowry. It is further
alleged that on 10.12.2015, she was driven out of her
matrimonial home, following which she returned to her parental
house. Despite intervention through a Panchayati, the dispute
could not be resolved, leading to the lodging of the FIR under
Sections 341, 323, 498A, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
4. Upon investigation, the police submitted charge-
sheet against the accused persons, including the present
petitioners, and cognizance for offence under Sections 341, 323,
498A, 504, and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was taken by the
learned Magistrate. Thereafter, the petitioners herein filed an
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36793 of 2018(6) dt.26-03-2026
3/10
application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. seeking discharge,
inter alia, on the grounds that the informant (O.P. No.2) had
never resided at the matrimonial home with the petitioners, that
the marriage between the informant (O.P. No.2) and their son
was a love marriage performed without their consent, and that
they had already disassociated themselves from their son prior
to the alleged occurrence. It was also submitted that the
allegations are false and motivated by ulterior considerations.
5. The learned Trial Court, after hearing both parties
and upon perusal of the case diary and materials on record,
found that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the
petitioners for the offences alleged and accordingly rejected the
discharge petition vide the impugned order dated 22.05.2018.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this
Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
impugned order dated 22.05.2018 is unsustainable in law,
having been passed in a routine and mechanical manner without
proper appreciation of the materials on record. He submits that
the foundational allegation of cruelty and demand of dowry is
inherently improbable, inasmuch as the informant herself has
admitted, including in the proceedings of A.B.P. No. 104/2016,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36793 of 2018(6) dt.26-03-2026
4/10
that she had been residing with her husband at Delhi and had
never lived at the matrimonial home of the petitioners. Learned
counsel further submits that there was neither occasion nor
opportunity for the petitioners to subject the O.P. No.2 to cruelty
or to raise any demand for dowry. It is submitted that the learned
Trial Court failed to consider this vital aspect, which goes to the
root of the prosecution case.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, moreover,
submits that the marriage between the O.P. No.2 and their son
was a love marriage performed without their consent, and due to
the strained relationship, the petitioners had already
disassociated themselves from their son much prior to the
alleged occurrence, which fact is supported by materials
available in the case diary as well as the declaration brought on
record. Learned counsel submits that the allegations in the FIR
are vague, omnibus and lacking in specific particulars so far as
the present petitioners are concerned, and have been levelled
only on account of their relationship with the husband. Learned
counsel puts his reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Cout in Kahkashan Kausar @Sonam and Ors. v. State of
Bihar and Ors., reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599. It is thus
submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36793 of 2018(6) dt.26-03-2026
5/10
petitioners, and the continuation of the criminal proceeding
would amount to abuse of the process of the Court, warranting
interference by this Court.
8. Learned APP for the State submits that the learned
Trial Court has rightly rejected the discharge petition after due
consideration of the materials available on record. It is
submitted that the allegations made in the FIR and witnesses
recorded during investigation, prima facie disclose the
commission of offences under the relevant provisions of the
Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
9. Despite valid service of notice upon O.P. No.2 and
grant of sufficient opportunities, none appears on her behalf to
contest the present application. Accordingly, this Court proceeds
to consider the matter in her absence.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned APP for the State, and have carefully perused the
impugned order as well as the materials available on record. The
core issue that arises for consideration is whether the materials
on record disclose sufficient grounds for proceeding against the
petitioners for the offences alleged.
11. At the outset, it is well settled that at the stage of
consideration of discharge under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36793 of 2018(6) dt.26-03-2026
6/10
Court is required to evaluate whether the materials on record, if
taken at their face value, disclose the existence of a prima facie
case against the accused. The Court is not expected to conduct a
meticulous examination of evidence or adjudicate upon the
reliability or sufficiency of the materials, as such exercise falls
within the domain of trial. If the materials disclose grave
suspicion against the accused, the Court is justified in framing
charge; however, where the allegations are inherently
improbable, vague or do not disclose the essential ingredients of
the alleged offences, the accused is entitled to discharge.
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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36793 of 2018(6) dt.26-03-2026
7/10
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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36793 of 2018(6) dt.26-03-2026
8/10
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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36793 of 2018(6) dt.26-03-2026
9/10
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. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the
facts of the present case, it appears from the record that the
allegations against the petitioners are primarily general and
omnibus in nature. It further transpires that the O.P. No.2
(informant) had admittedly been residing with her husband at
Delhi and not at the matrimonial home with the petitioners,
which creates a serious doubt regarding the veracity of the
allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry at the hands of the
petitioners. Moreover, the materials brought on record,
including the case diary, also indicate strained relations arising
out of a love marriage performed without the consent of the
petitioners, thereby lending credence to the defence plea of false
implication. In such circumstances, the continuation of the
criminal proceeding against the petitioners, in absence of
specific and credible allegations, would not be justified.
15. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and
upon careful consideration of the entire materials available on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36793 of 2018(6) dt.26-03-2026
10/10
record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned
Trial Court has not appreciated material aspects of the case
while rejecting the discharge petition. The impugned order,
therefore, warrants interference by this Court, as continuation of
the criminal proceeding against the present petitioners, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, would not be justified.
16. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
22.05.2018 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Banka in connection
with G.R. No.69 of 2016, arising out of Banka Mahila P.S. Case
No.03 of 2016, is hereby set aside so far as the present
petitioners are concerned. The petitioners are discharged from
the aforesaid case.
17. Resultantly, the present application stands
allowed. Any further proceedings against the petitioners in
connection with the aforesaid case shall remain quashed.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-
U T
Checking your session…