Patna High Court

PUSHPA DEVI @ PUSHPA MISHRAversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 7 April 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

Holding

The Court held that the order taking cognizance against the petitioners was unsustainable as no prima facie case existed, and therefore the criminal proceeding must be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

Summary

The petitioners, in‑laws of the deceased Sangeeta Kumari, sought to quash a 2001 order of a Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate that had taken cognizance of offences under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The victim had allegedly suffered dowry‑related cruelty, but she died of cancer and the FIR contained only vague, omnibus allegations against the petitioners, who lived separately and were not specifically implicated in any act. The High Court examined the material on record and held that no prima facie case existed against the petitioners and that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process. Relying on Supreme Court precedents concerning the misuse of Section 498A and the scope of Section 482 CrPC, the Court quashed the magistrate’s order and set aside the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The application under Section 482 was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate could validly take cognizance of offences against the petitioners when the FIR contains only general allegations without specific acts.
Whether the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding under Section 482 CrPC on the ground of lack of prima facie case and abuse of process.
Whether continuation of the prosecution would constitute an abuse of the court’s process in the context of a matrimonial dispute.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 498A

Subjects

dowry harassment
Section 498A
quash of criminal proceeding
abuse of process
Section 482 CrPC
prima facie case
matrimonial dispute

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40033 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-542 Year-2000 Thana- BHAGALPUR KOTWALI District-
Bhagalpur
======================================================
1. Pushpa Devi @ Pushpa Mishra, W/o Harendra Kumar Mishra, resident of
Village- Bath, P.S.- Bath, District- Bhagalpur.
2. Harendra Kumar Mishra, S/o Late Prahalad Mishra, resident of Village-
Bath, P.S.- Bath, District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ramesh Chandra Choubey, Son of Late Bindeshwary Prasad Choubey, R/o-
Tilka Manjhi Hatia Road PS- Barari, Dist- Bhagalpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. S. Ehteshamuddin, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER

7 07-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as

learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been filed under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for

quashing the order dated 19.03.2001 passed by learned Sub-

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur (hereinafter referred

to as ‘Magistrate’) in connection with G.R. No.2048 of 2000

arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No.542 of 2000 wherein

learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section

498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 and

4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioners

herein who are in-laws of the victim, namely, Late Sangeeta
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40033 of 2018(7) dt.07-04-2026
2/10

Kumari.

3. The factual matrix, in brief, as per the informant

(O.P. No.2 herein), is that his daughter, Late Sangeeta Kumari

was married to Gopal Prasad Pandey (brother of petitioner no.1)

on 22.04.1996, whereafter she was subjected to cruelty and

harassment in connection with demand of dowry by her

matrimonial family members. Subsequent to her marriage, it has

been alleged that Sangeeta Kumari was diagnosed with cancer

yet the behaviour of her in-laws did not change towards her and

she was given needful treatment by the informant (O.P. No.2).

Thereafter, in-laws of Sangeeta Kumari including petitioner

no.1 and petitioner no.2, lured her husband Gopal Prasad

Pandey of solemnizing second marriage. It has been alleged that

the husband of Sangeeta Kumari left her at her paternal home

and the gifts including jewellery, utensils, clothes, etc. were kept

by her in-laws at her matrimonial home. On such allegations,

FIR bearing Kotwali P.S. Case No.542 of 2000 was registered

and after investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet.

4. Upon perusal of the materials available on record,

learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section

498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners vide the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40033 of 2018(7) dt.07-04-2026
3/10

impugned order dated 19.03.2001. Aggrieved by the impugned

order of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate,

petitioners have filed the present Criminal Miscellaneous

Application before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

impugned order taking cognizance is wholly unsustainable in

the eyes of law, as the same has been passed in a mechanical

manner without proper application of judicial mind by the

learned Magistrate. He submits that the petitioners are relatives

of the husband of the deceased and were residing separately at

their respective places, having no concern with the alleged

occurrence. Learned counsel further submits that no specific

allegation or overt act has been attributed to them either in the

FIR or during the course of investigation. He further submits

that prior to institution of the present FIR, the informant (O.P.

No.2) had filed a complaint case bearing Complaint Case No.

973 of 2000, wherein the petitioners were not arrayed as

accused persons, which clearly indicates that their implication in

the present case is an afterthought.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the materials

collected during investigation do not disclose any prima facie

case against the petitioners and none of the witnesses have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40033 of 2018(7) dt.07-04-2026
4/10

supported the allegations so far as these petitioners are

concerned. Learned counsel also submits that the victim was

admittedly suffering from cancer and was undergoing treatment

at various places, including Tata Memorial Hospital, Bombay,

and her death occurred due to prolonged illness. It is submitted

that in such circumstances, continuation of the criminal

proceeding against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the

process of the Court and, therefore, the impugned order taking

cognizance is fit to be quashed in the interest of justice.

7. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

quashing and submits that the impugned order has been passed

after due consideration of the materials available on record. It is

submitted that the FIR disclose allegations relating to cruelty

and harassment in connection with demand of dowry, and the

learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance upon finding

prima facie case against the accused persons, including the

present petitioners.

8. It further appears from the record that the victim,

namely Sangeeta Kumari, as well as O.P. No.2 (informant) have

died during pendency of the present proceeding.

9. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court has carefully

perused the FIR, the materials available on record as well as the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40033 of 2018(7) dt.07-04-2026
5/10

impugned order taking cognizance. The scope of interference at

the stage of cognizance is limited to examining whether a prima

facie case is made out from the materials on record and whether

continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse

of the process of the Court.

10. 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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40033 of 2018(7) dt.07-04-2026
6/10

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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40033 of 2018(7) dt.07-04-2026
7/10

the case over and above the averments and,
if need be, with due care and
circumspection, to try and read between the
lines.”

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan

Kausar v. State of Bihar reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 has

observed as under:

“17. The abovementioned
decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court
has at numerous instances expressed
concern over the misuse of Section 498-A
I.P.C and the increased tendency of
implicating relatives of the husband in
matrimonial disputes, without analysing the
long-term ramifications of a trial on the
complainant as well as the accused. It is
further manifest from the said judgments that
false implication by way of general omnibus
allegations made in the course of
matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would
result in misuse of the process of law.
Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments
has warned the courts from proceeding
against the relatives and in-laws of the
husband when no prima facie case is made
out against them.”

12. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40033 of 2018(7) dt.07-04-2026
8/10

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
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)

13. On a careful and holistic examination of the entire

materials available on record, it appears that the prosecution

case against the present petitioners is primarily founded on

general allegations without any specific attribution of role. The

FIR, which has been instituted on the basis of the statement of

the informant (O.P. No.2), does not disclose any distinct or

particular act of cruelty or harassment committed by these

petitioners. It further transpires that there is no specific

allegation against the petitioners. The petitioners are married
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40033 of 2018(7) dt.07-04-2026
9/10

sister and brother-in-law of the husband of the deceased who

were residing separately at their respective native places, away

from the place of occurrence, which further weakens the

prosecution case against them in absence of any specific

allegation regarding their participation.

14. It further appears from the materials brought on

record that the deceased was suffering from cancer and had been

undergoing treatment at several places, including Tata Memorial

Hospital, Bombay. The documents annexed indicate that she

was under continuous medical care prior to her death. In such

background, the cause of death assumes significance,

particularly when there is absence of any clear material

indicating that the petitioners had subjected the deceased to

cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand. Thus,

upon cumulative consideration of the material available on

record, this Court finds that there is no substantive material to

indicate the involvement of the present petitioners in the alleged

offence. The allegations, being general in nature and not

supported by any specific evidence, fail to disclose a prima

facie case against the present petitioners.

15. In such circumstances, this Court is of the

considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceeding
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40033 of 2018(7) dt.07-04-2026
10/10

against the present petitioners would amount to abuse of the

process of the Court, particularly when the materials on record

do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences

so far as these petitioners are concerned.

16. Accordingly, the impugned order dated

19.03.2001 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, Bhagalpur in connection with G.R. No.2048 of 2000

arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No.542 of 2000, so far as it

relates to the present petitioners, is hereby quashed.

17. Resultantly, the entire criminal proceeding against

the petitioners stands set aside.

18. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application

is, accordingly, allowed.

19. The Interim Order granting stay of proceeding of

Kotwali P.S. Case No.542 of 2000 is vacated.

20. Let a copy of this Order be communicated to the

concerned Court forthwith.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…