Patna High Court
RAJ KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court held that a prima facie case under Section 498A exists and therefore the order taking cognizance cannot be quashed.
Summary
Petitioner Raj Kumar, husband of Usha Kumari, filed an application to quash the order dated 06-06-2022 in which the Chief Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance under Section 498A of the IPC and issued summons against him. He contended that the alleged demand for dowry was actually a business loan, that the complaint was vague and omnibus, and that the case was filed maliciously after a Domestic Violence Act proceeding. The opposite party countered that the complaint, supported by the complainant’s sworn statement and three witness testimonies, specifically alleged a demand for a Bullet motorcycle and Rs.2 lakh as dowry, followed by cruelty, forced eviction, and a second marriage. The High Court examined the material and held that the allegations prima facie disclose both dowry demand and cruelty, thereby establishing a case under Section 498A. Consequently, the Court found no reason to set aside the magistrate’s order and dismissed the petition to quash the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a prima facie case of dowry demand and cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC.
- Whether the order taking cognizance under Section 498A should be quashed on the ground of lack of specific allegations or malicious prosecution.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- Section 498A
- quash of criminal proceeding
- prima facie case
- malicious prosecution
- domestic violence
- cruelty
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.398 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1744 Year-2021 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Samastipur
======================================================
RAJ KUMAR S/O AMIT KUMAR Resident of village and P.O. and P.S.-
Fuldomar, District- Banka, at present residing C/o Lalji Variety Sweets Sanat
Nagar, Rambag Lal Chowk, P.S.- Rambag District- Srinagar (Jammu and
Kashmir).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. USHA KUMARI @ SANJANA GUPTA W/O RAJ KUMAR Resident of
village, P.O., and P.S.- Fuldomar district- Banka.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amaresh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bharat Lal, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ramadhar Shekhar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
5 22-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2/complainant.
2. The present application has been filed on behalf of
the petitioner for quashing the order dated 06.06.2022 passed by
the learned In-Charge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in
Complaint Case No.1744 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the
learned Court concerned took cognizance under Section 498(A)
of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons
including the present petitioner and summons have been issued.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.398 of 2023(5) dt.22-01-2026
2/4
the learned Court concerned has wrongly taken cognizance
under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. as the same is not being made
out as against the petitioner, who is the husband of the opposite
party no.2. He substantiates his arguments by the fact that the
money that was being demanded by the accused persons
including the present petitioner was for carrying out a business
and hence, would not come within a purview of demand of
dowry. It is further submitted that the allegations are totally
general and omnibus in nature and no specific allegations have
been made against the petitioner. Learned counsel has also
submitted that for the same allegations the opposite party
no.2/complainant has taken recourse to filing of a Domestic
Violence Act case and the present case has been filed with a
malicious motive, as such the same could be quashed on the
ground of malicious prosecution.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2 opposed the present application by submitting that the
complaint case filed by the opposite party no.2 is totally
supported by the statement of the complainant on solemn
affirmation and also by three witnesses examined during the
inquiry. He has controverted the submission made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no demand for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.398 of 2023(5) dt.22-01-2026
3/4
dowry as the Complaint and the complainant’s statement on
oath clearly indicate that there was a demand for Bullet
motorcycle and Rs.2 Lakh as dowry, which would facilitate the
petitioner in carrying out his business. He has invited this
Court’s attention to the fact that even after payment of the Rs.2
lakh as dowry, the demand for Bullet motorcycle also continued
and the opposite party no.2/complainant was subjected to
extreme cruelty and torture and finally on 17.10.2021, she was
forcefully ousted from the house keeping all her streedhan,
jewellery etc.. So far as the argument of general and omnibus
allegation is concerned, such argument would not fall good
against the present petitioner, who happens to be the husband of
the opposite party no.2 and who is primarily responsible for the
welfare of his wife. Moreover, the allegations disclose even
specific allegations against the husband of demand and torture,
including the incident of 16.11.2021 during the course of
Panchayati. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has
now contracted a second marriage and has left the complainant
along with her child in lurch and this very fact also adds to the
offence of mental cruelty inflicted upon the opposite party no.2.
5. Taking into consideration the rival contentions of
the parties, this Court is of the view that the allegations made in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.398 of 2023(5) dt.22-01-2026
4/4
the complaint case, prima facie, disclose the allegation of both
demand of dowry and consequent cruelty being inflicted upon
the opposite party no.2 and the said complaint also stands
supported by the statement of the complainant on solemn
affirmation and from the statement of the witnesses examined
during the inquiry. Upon consideration of such materials on
record, prima facie case under Section 498(A) has been found
and summons have been issued. This Court finds no convincing
reason to quash/set aside the order dated 06.06.2022 whereby
cognizance has been taken as at this stage it is only to be seen
whether prima facie case is made out or not and other details
need not be gone into.
6. Upon such consideration of facts and circumstances
as also the settled law, the present application for quashing the
order dated 06.06.2022 passed by learned In-Charge Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in connection with Complaint
Case No. 1744 of 2021 stands dismissed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…