Patna High Court
Shashikant SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court quashed the FIR and proceedings against the father‑in‑law, mother‑in‑law and sister‑in‑law, but dismissed the application against the husband due to specific dowry‑related allegations.
Summary
The petitioners, comprising a husband, his in‑laws and a sister‑in‑law, sought to quash the order rejecting their discharge application under Section 239 CrPC in a dowry harassment case filed under Sections 498A and 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They contended that the allegations against the in‑laws were vague, omnibus and fabricated, arising from a matrimonial dispute after the wife left the matrimonial home. The court examined the Supreme Court’s decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Bihar, which cautions against prosecuting family members without specific allegations. It held that the FIR and proceedings against the father‑in‑law, mother‑in‑law and sister‑in‑law were an abuse of process and quashed them, while finding specific dowry‑related allegations against the husband sufficient to reject his application. Consequently, the order rejecting the discharge petition was set aside for the three family members, but the application concerning the husband was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR and charges under Sections 498A, 34 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners' in‑laws can stand on general and omnibus allegations.
- Whether the discharge application under Section 239 CrPC should be allowed in view of the alleged lack of specific evidence.
- Whether specific allegations against the husband justify continuation of the criminal proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 239
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 498A
Subjects
- Dowry harassment
- Section 498A
- Abuse of process
- General allegations
- Discharge petition
- Matrimonial dispute
- Quashing FIR
- Family liability
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40624 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-202 Year-2018 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Patna
======================================================
1. Shashikant Singh Son of Ram Suresh Singh, R/o Village - LF/46, Shri
Krishnapuri, Boring Road, P.O. - B.C. Road, P.S. - Budda Colony, Distt. -
Patna.
2. Ram Suresh Singh, Son of Late Tulsi Singh, R/o Village - LF/46, Shri
Krishnapuri, Boring Road, P.O. - B.C. Road, P.S. - Budda Colony, Distt. -
Patna.
3. Naina Singh, Wife of Ram Suresh Singh, R/o Village - LF/46, Shri
Krishnapuri, Boring Road, P.O. - B.C. Road, P.S. - Budda Colony, Distt. -
Patna.
4. Shyamli Kumari, Daughter of Ram Suresh Singh, R/o Village – LF/46, Shri
Krishnapuri, Boring Road, P.O. - B.C. Road, P.S. - Budda Colony, Distt. -
Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Ram Rekha Singh, Son of Late Ramraksha Singh Village- Road No. 24,
Rajeev Nagar, P.O. - Keshari Nagar, P.S. - Rajiv Nagar, Distt. - Patna -
800024.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Aditya, Adv.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sunil Kr. Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Ranjeet Patel, Adv.
Mr. Shivendra Kr. Sinha, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40624 of 2024 dt.05-02-2026
2/10
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-02-2026
Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. This is an application seeking quashing of the
order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the Court of learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in connection with Mahila
P.S. Case No. 202 of 2018 (G.R. No. 8944/2018) registered for
the offences under Sections 498(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code (in short the I.P.C.) and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961, whereby the discharge petition filed on
behalf of the petitioners under Section 239 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Cr.P.C.) has been
rejected.
3. The prosecution case is to the effect that the
informant/opposite party No. 2 has alleged that his daughter was
suffering from some disability in her left leg and he had given
an advertisement in order to find a suitable groom stating the
aforesaid fact and after seeing the same, the petitioner No. 2,
namely, Ram Suresh Singh, contacted the informant/opposite
party No. 2 for marriage of his son. It is further alleged that a
car, in the name of the informant’s (O.P. No. 2) daughter, along
with other items were given as gifts in the marriage and despite
such gifts being given, the daughter of the informant/opposite
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40624 of 2024 dt.05-02-2026
3/10
party No. 2 was being regularly taunted for certain things and
also with regard to her disability. It has lastly been alleged that
the daughter of the informant/opposite party No. 2 was ill-
treated and was also threatened that divorce shall be given and
the petitioners were also demanding Rs. 50,00,000/- from the
informant/opposite party No. 2.
4. Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, the learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted
that the allegations against all the petitioners are concocted and
no such demand of dowry or torture was ever committed by the
petitioners. It has been submitted that, in fact, the petitioners
were cheated by the informant/opposite party No. 2 as the
disability of his daughter was never disclosed in the
advertisement nor they were told about her physical disability.
It has further been submitted that the daughter of the
informant/opposite party No. 2, who left the house of the
petitioners in the year 2016, had gone to her parents’ house
without giving any reasonable cause for the same. It has next
been submitted that after waiting for return of informant’s
daughter for almost two years, the petitioner No. 1, namely,
Shashikant Singh, has preferred a matrimonial case, bearing
Matrimonial Case No. 1206 of 2018, seeking dissolution of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40624 of 2024 dt.05-02-2026
4/10
marriage and it was only upon filing of such matrimonial case
that the informant/opposite party No. 2 has lodged the present
F.I.R. on 19.12.2018 against the petitioners on false and
fabricated grounds.
5. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioners has submitted that during the course of trial, the
petitioners filed an application for discharge on various grounds,
especially the fact that there is no ingredients of the offences
under Sections 498(A) and 34 of the I.P.C. against them. It has
also been pleaded that no independent witnesses have been
examined during the course of investigation in support of the
case of the prosecution and, therefore, proceeding ahead on such
vague and baseless statements and thus the framing of charge
would not be proper. It has further been submitted that without
going into the evidence, the Court of learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Patna rejected the discharge petition filed
on behalf of the petitioners by the impugned order dated
01.04.2024.
6. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners
that the petitioner No. 1, namely, Shashikant Singh, is the
husband of the daughter of the informant/opposite party No. 2,
whereas the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Ram Suresh Singh
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40624 of 2024 dt.05-02-2026
5/10
and Naina Singh, are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the
informant’s daughter respectively and they are old aged persons.
It has been submitted that the petitioner No. 4, namely, Shyamli
Kumari, is the married Nanad of the daughter of the
informant/opposite party No. 2 and is a teacher at Sant Karen’s
High School and is living separately along with her husband.
7. The learned Senior Advocate has submitted that
from the perusal of the F.I.R., it would be evident that there is
general and omnibus allegations leveled against the petitioners
with the use of the following words :
“esjh iq=h dks mijksDr O;fDr;ksa nokjk fd;s tk jgs
izrkMuk ds dkj.k esjh csVh xEHkhj volkn ls xqtj jgh gSA’’
8. It has, thus, been submitted that there is general
and omnibus nature of allegations against all the petitioners
without giving specific details and, therefore, continuation of
the case against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the
process of law.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant/opposite party No. 2 as also the learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer
made in the present application and have stated that there is
allegations upon all the petitioners of demanding dowry as well
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40624 of 2024 dt.05-02-2026
6/10
as torture to the daughter of the informant/opposite party No. 2.
It has been submitted that there is sufficient material available
on record and as such, the learned Court had earlier taken
cognizance and the application under Section 239 Cr.P.C.
seeking discharge has rightly been dismissed as there is enough
material on the record to suggest that the petitioners were
involved in the offence as alleged and, therefore, they should
faced the trial.
10. After having heard the learned counsels for the
parties at length and having perused the specific pleadings
including the counter affidavit, it is clear that the marriage of the
daughter of the informant/opposite party No. 2 with petitioner
No. 1, namely, Shashikant Singh, was solemnized in the year
2016 and within two years of such marriage, the petitioner No. 1
had filed a case for a decree of divorce. From the perusal of the
F.I.R., it is very clear that general and omnibus allegations have
been leveled against all the petitioners, especially the petitioner
Nos. 2, 3 and 4, who happens to be the father-in-law, mother-in-
law and the sister-in-law (Nanad) of the daughter of the
informant/opposite party No. 2.
11. It is a settled principle of law as decided by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40624 of 2024 dt.05-02-2026
7/10
Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 735, where, in
paragraphs 27, 30 and 31, it has been observed as follows :
“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 must exercise caution in such
cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the
legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of
innocent family members. We say so for the reason
that while the complainant/respondent No.2 has
made vague and omnibus allegations against the
accused/appellant herein, she has failed to justify
the same before this Court. Such actions would
create significant divisions and distrust among
people, while also placing an unnecessary strain on
the judicial system, particularly criminal courts.
30. The inclusion of Section 498A of the
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 498A of the IPC as a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40624 of 2024 dt.05-02-2026
8/10
tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the
husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and
generalised allegations during matrimonial
conflicts, if not scrutinized, 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 498A
of the 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 498A of
the 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 respondent herein, a complaint under
Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In
fact, the insertion of the said 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.”
12. From the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40624 of 2024 dt.05-02-2026
9/10
naming of each and every members of the family with general
and omnibus allegations has been deprecated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and, therefore, in view of such settled law, the
criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner Nos. 2, 3
and 4, namely, Ram Suresh Singh (father-in-law), Naina Singh
(mother-in-law) and Shyamli Kumari (sister-in-law/Nanad)
respectively, would amount to abuse of the process of law.
13. Thus, in view of the facts afore-stated, the
present application with respect to petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4,
above-named, stands allowed and the impugned order dated
01.04.2024, referred to above, with respect to them, is set aside.
Consequently, the F.I.R. of Mahila P.S. Case No. 202 of 2018
(G.R. No. 8944/2018), dated 19.12.2018, and all consequent
proceedings initiated pursuant thereto with respect to petitioner
Nos. 2, 3 and 4, above-named, stand quashed.
14. So far as the application with respect to
petitioner No. 1, namely, Shashikant Singh, is concerned, since
there is specific allegations upon him with regard to demand of
car and also receiving certain items of his liking, this Court is
not inclined to entertain the same. Accordingly, the application
with respect to petitioner No. 1, above-named, stands dismissed.
15. The application stands disposed off accordingly.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40624 of 2024 dt.05-02-2026
10/10
16. Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands
disposed off.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 06.02.2026
Transmission Date 06.02.2026
Checking your session…