Patna High Court
Sanjay Singh and OrsversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The impugned order framing charges against the petitioners is set aside and the criminal proceedings against them are quashed.
Summary
The petitioners, relatives of Muto Devi, challenged the trial court's order dated 06.04.2018 that framed charges under Sections 498A and 379 IPC against them and the husband of the complainant, invoking Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the proceedings. The complainant alleged cruelty, dowry harassment and theft, but earlier similar complaints in 2006 had resulted in acquittal of the same accused. The High Court examined the scope of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, noting that the allegations against the petitioners were vague, omnibus and lacked specific overt acts, and that continuation of the case would constitute an abuse of process. Citing Supreme Court precedents on quashing frivolous proceedings, the Court held that the material did not disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners. Consequently, the order framing charges against them was set aside and the criminal proceedings were quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court's framing of charges against the petitioners can be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners.
- Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings amounts to an abuse of the judicial process.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 379, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- Section 482 CrPC
- quash criminal proceedings
- abuse of process
- Section 498A IPC
- dowry harassment
- prima facie case
- framing of charges
- matrimonial dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26751 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2016 Thana- MARANCHI District- Patna
======================================================
Dairani Devi @ Jaimanti Devi, W/o Late Kedar Singh, R/o Vill.- Sherpur,
P.S.- Maranchi, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Muto Devi, W/o Ajay Singh, D/o Upendra Singh, Presently residing at
Mohalla Tola, Mokama, P.S. Mokama, Distt. Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 40860 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2016 Thana- MARANCHI District- Patna
======================================================
1. Sanjay Singh, son of Late Tiro Singh, resident of Village and P.O. and P.S.
Maranchi, District Patna.
2. Sharmila Devi, wife of Sanjay Singh, resident of village Maranchi, P.S.
Maranchi, District Patna.
3. Arvind Singh, son of Krit Singh, resident of village and P.S. Maranchi,
District Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Muto Devi, W/o Ajay Singh, D/o Upendra Singh, Presently residing at
Mohalla Tola, Mokama, P.S. Mokama, Distt. Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 26751 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Asharaf Ansari, APP
Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwary, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 40860 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwary, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
9 01-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned
APP for the State.
2. These two Criminal Miscellaneous Applications,
being Cr. Misc. No. 26751 of 2018 and Cr. Misc. No. 40860 of
2018, have been taken up together and are being disposed of by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26751 of 2018(9) dt.01-07-2026
2/13
this common order as both arise out of the same order dated
06.04.2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned order’) passed
by the learned Sub-Judge-IV-cum-A.C.J.M., Barh (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Trial Court’) in connection with Maranchi P.S.
Case No. 86 of 2016 and involve identical questions of fact and
law.
3. The present applications have been filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking
quashing of the impugned order dated 06.04.2018, whereby
charges under Sections 498A and 379 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 have been framed against the
petitioners herein and the husband of O.P. No.2.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that O.P. No.2 was
married to Ajay Singh in the year 1999 according to Hindu rites
and customs. It is alleged that after the marriage she was
subjected to cruelty and harassment for jewellery and cash by
her husband and other members of the matrimonial family
including petitioners herein and they ousted her on 04.06.2006
from her matrimonial home for which O.P. No.2 had lodged
complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. C/205/2006 which
is pending. It is further alleged that on 05.12.2016, upon
returning to her matrimonial home, she found the lock of her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26751 of 2018(9) dt.01-07-2026
3/13
room and the trunk kept therein broken and certain articles,
including ornaments and cash, missing, whereupon suspicion
was expressed against the accused persons. On the basis of
above allegations, O.P. No.2 submitted a written report before
the Station House Officer, Maranchi Police Station, which was
registered as F.I.R. bearing Maranchi P.S. Case No.86 of 2016
under sections 498A, 341, 323, 379, 504 and 506 of Indian
Penal Code.
5. Upon completion of investigation, I.O submitted
the charge-sheet only against the husband of O.P. No.2 under
section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. However, on perusal of
paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of case diary, the learned Trial Court
found sufficient material and took cognizance of offences
punishable under Sections 498A and 379 of Indian Penal Code
against the husband of O.P. No.2 and the petitioners herein.
Subsequently, the learned Trial Court framed charges under
Sections 498A and 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code against the present petitioners and husband of O.P. No.2
vide the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have
preferred the present Criminal Miscellaneous Applications
invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26751 of 2018(9) dt.01-07-2026
4/13
impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
impugned order suffers from serious legal infirmities and has
been passed without proper appreciation of the materials
available on record. Learned counsel further submits that the
allegations levelled against the petitioners are wholly omnibus,
vague and general in nature and no specific overt act has been
attributed to any of them except bald and sweeping allegations.
Learned counsel further submits that in Criminal Miscellaneous
No.26751 of 2018, the petitioner is Dayarani Devi @ Jaimanti
Devi, the mother-in-law of O.P. No.2 (according to the
prosecution version) and in Criminal Miscellaneous No.40860 of
2018, petitioner no.1 is Sanjay Singh, who is Nandoi (husband
of the sister-in-law (Nanad) of O.P. No.2), petitioner no.2 is
Sharmila Devi, who is the sister-in-law (Nanad) and petitioner
no.3 is Arbind Singh who is the cousin brother of the husband of
O.P. No.2 (according to the prosecution version).
7. Learned counsel further submits that O.P. No.2 had
earlier instituted a complaint case bearing Complaint Case
No.C/205 of 2006 against 9 persons, including the present
petitioners except Arvind Singh (petitioner no.3 in Criminal
Miscellaneous No.40860 of 2018), under Sections 498A, 323
and 406 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26751 of 2018(9) dt.01-07-2026
5/13
Prohibition Act, which was under trial, and ultimately
culminated in acquittal of the accused persons on 25.06.2016.
The findings recorded therein indicate that the prosecution
version was not found worthy of acceptance and serious doubts
had arisen regarding solemnization of marriage of O.P. No.2
with co-accused Ajay Singh. The learned Court had also given
finding that there was 7 long years of delay in filing of the
complaint case, the allegation is without any evidence in support
and the prosecution could not prove its case, accordingly the
accused persons were acquitted. Thereafter, on 06.12.2016 i.e.
after about 6 month, O.P No.2, on the basis of alleged dowry-
torture, has lodged the present F.I.R. He further submits that I.O
did not find sufficient material against the present petitioners in
the charge-sheet, showing the allegation untrue against them,
however the learned Trial Court proceeded to take cognizance
and subsequently framed charges without there being any
material giving rise to a grave suspicion against the petitioners
herein. It is further submitted that the appeal against the
Judgment of acquittal dated 25.06.2016 filed by O.P. No.2 vide
Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2016 was dismissed vide Judgment
dated 08.04.2021 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-3rd,
Barh, Patna. It is thus submitted that continuation of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26751 of 2018(9) dt.01-07-2026
6/13
criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of
the Court and the impugned order is fit to be quashed in exercise
of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
8. Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 opposes the
applications and submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly
framed charges upon consideration of the materials collected
during investigation. Learned counsel further submits that the
F.I.R. and the statements recorded during investigation disclose
specific allegations regarding cruelty, harassment and the
occurrence relating to theft of articles from the matrimonial
home, which prima facie make out the offences alleged against
the petitioners herein. Learned counsel submits that at this stage,
the Court is only required to ascertain whether a prima facie
case or grave suspicion exists against the accused and a
meticulous examination of the evidence is impermissible.
However, he fairly conceded that in the earlier complaint
petition with respect to dowry-torture, the accused persons were
acquitted on 25.06.2016 and F.I.R. was lodged thereafter, when
her room was broken and valuable material therein were
missing and there was suspicion that the said occurrence was
committed by the accused persons.
9. Learned APP for the State fairly submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26751 of 2018(9) dt.01-07-2026
7/13
petitioners herein are in-laws of O.P. No.2 and this Court may
pass appropriate order in the interest of justice.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
learned APP for the State and upon perusal of the materials
available on record including the case diary, it appears that the
present prosecution arises out of Maranchi P.S. Case No. 86 of
2016 instituted on the basis of a written report submitted by O.P.
No.2. It is alleged that the O.P. No.2 whose marriage with co-
accused Ajay Singh was solemnized in 1999, was subjected to
cruelty and harassment at her matrimonial home, for which a
complaint case was lodged against the accused persons in 2006,
in which after trial they had been acquitted. It is further alleged
that on 05.12.2016, upon returning to the house, O.P. No.2
found the lock of her room and trunk to be broken and certain
ornaments, cash and household articles missing therefrom,
leading her to suspect the involvement of the accused persons
including the present petitioners in the occurrence. During
investigation, the allegations against the petitioners herein were
found untrue and only against the husband of O.P. No.2 the
charge-sheet was submitted under Section 498A of Indian Penal
Code. It further transpires from the record that the learned Trial
Court took cognizance on perusal of certain paragraphs of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26751 of 2018(9) dt.01-07-2026
8/13
case diary and subsequently framed charges against the present
petitioners. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court
proceeds to examine whether the continuance of the criminal
proceeding against the petitioners would be in the interest of
justice or would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
11. At the outset, it is necessary to delineate the scope
of inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. It is a settled position of law that
such power is to be invoked with great caution and only in
circumstances where intervention is necessary to prevent misuse
of the judicial process or to advance the cause of justice. At this
stage, the Court is required to assess whether the allegations
made in the complaint, if accepted in their entirety, disclose the
commission of any offence, without undertaking a detailed
evaluation of the evidentiary materials.
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 Code of
Criminal Procedure. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed as
under:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26751 of 2018(9) dt.01-07-2026
9/13
“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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26751 of 2018(9) dt.01-07-2026
10/13
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 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 Karnataka Emta
Coal Mines Limited and Anr. v. Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2250 has
discussed scope of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the stage of
framing of charges and held as under:
“18.8. While exercising the powers vested in
the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C.,
whether at the stage of issuing process or at
the stage of committal or even at the stage of
framing of charges, which are all stages that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26751 of 2018(9) dt.01-07-2026
11/13
are prior to commencement of the actual
trial, the test to be applied is that the Court
must be fully satisfied that the material
produced by the accused would lead to a
conclusion that their defence is based on
sound, reasonable and indubitable facts. The
material relied on by the accused should
also be such that would persuade a
reasonable person to dismiss the accusations
levelled against them as false.”
14. In the present case, the allegations against the
petitioners herein, are primarily omnibus and general in nature.
A careful perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that no specific overt act
has been attributed to any of the petitioners so as to disclose
their individual involvement in the alleged commission of the
offences. The allegations of cruelty are vague and lacking in
particulars, while the allegation relating to theft is founded
merely on the suspicion of O.P No.2. Admittedly, in earlier
complaint with respect to dowry torture lodged in the year 2006
by O.P. No.2, the accused persons were acquitted after trial.
Subsequently, an F.I.R. in 2016 with respect to dowry torture on
the same allegation is an abuse of process of law.
15. This Court is also mindful of the settled principle
that although the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code is
to be exercised sparingly, the same is not barred merely because
the matter is at the stage of framing of charge. Where the
materials on record, even if taken at their face value, fail to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26751 of 2018(9) dt.01-07-2026
12/13
disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences or
where continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to
abuse of the process of the Court, the inherent jurisdiction can
be invoked to secure the ends of justice. The stage of framing of
charge does not denude the High Court of its power to examine
whether the prosecution, as against a particular accused, is
legally sustainable.
16. Now, the law with respect to quashing of criminal
proceeding is now well settled that while considering a prayer to
quash the criminal complaint and the consequential proceedings
at the threshold, the Court is required to examine whether the
allegations made in the complaint along with materials in
support thereof make out a prima facie case to proceed against
the accused or not. The reference to the same has been made by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments including State of
Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors., reported in 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 and Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947.
17. In the considered opinion of this Court, the facts
of the present case are squarely covered by the principles
enunciated in Bhajan Lal (supra). The allegations levelled
against the petitioners, even if taken to be true in their entirety,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26751 of 2018(9) dt.01-07-2026
13/13
fail to constitute a prima facie case for the offences alleged. In
the absence of specific allegations against the petitioners and
acquittal of accused persons including the petitioners by the
competent Court on the same allegation of dowry torture in
previous complaint filed by O.P. No.2, continuation of the
criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of
the Court.
18. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
06.04.2018 passed by the learned Sub Judge-IV-cum-A.C.J.M.,
Barh, arising out of Maranchi P.S. Case No. 86 of 2016, so far
as it relates to the present petitioners, is hereby set aside and the
entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom qua the petitioners
is quashed.
19. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Applications
are, accordingly, allowed.
20. Interim order(s), if any, stands vacated.
21. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Court concerned forthwith for needful and compliance.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.