Patna High Court
RANI GUPTA @ KUWAR RANI GUPTAversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
In the absence of specific, proximate allegations, continuing criminal proceedings against family members under Section 498A is an abuse of process and the order taking cognizance must be quashed.
Summary
The petitioners – the mother‑in‑law, sister‑in‑law and brother‑in‑law of the complainant – filed an application to quash the order dated 10‑Oct‑2022 that took cognizance against them under Sections 341, 323, 354, 427, 498A, 506, 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The FIR, filed by the complainant Anita Kumari, alleged dowry‑related harassment and torture but contained only general and omnibus accusations against the family members. The State and the opposite party opposed the quash petition, arguing that the charge‑sheet contained specific imputations. The Court examined precedents such as Kahkashan Kausar, Preeti Gupta, Dara Laxmi Narayana and others, noting that where allegations against relatives are vague and they do not reside with the complainant, proceeding against them amounts to an abuse of process. Applying this principle, the Court held that continuing the criminal proceedings would be unjust and quashed the order with respect to the petitioners. Consequently, the application for quashing was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether an order taking cognizance against family members under Section 498A based solely on general and omnibus allegations can be sustained.
- Whether proceeding against relatives who have no specific, proximate involvement constitutes an abuse of the court process.
- Whether the provisions of Section 498A may be invoked against family members not residing with the complainant.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 354, 427, 498A, 506
Subjects
- Section 498A
- Dowry Harassment
- General and Omnibus Allegations
- Quash Order
- Abuse of Process
- Family Members Liability
- Criminal Procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41165 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Rani Gupta @ Kuwar Rani Gupta Wife Of Late Ashok Kumar Resident Of
Village- Khilanganj, Chaukhandi Path, Sasaram , Ps- Sasaram, Distt- Rohtas
2. Sadhna Devi @ Sadhna Kumari Daughter Of Late Ashok Kumar Resident
Of Village- Khilanganj, Chaukhandi Path, Sasaram , Ps- Sasaram, Distt-
Rohtas
3. Amit Kumar Son Of Late Ashok Kumar Resident Of Village- Khilanganj,
Chaukhandi Path, Sasaram , Ps- Sasaram, Distt- Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anita Kumari @ Jyoti Kumari Daughter Of Shashi Kant Singh @ Munna
Saw Resident Of Village- Sapullahganj, Po- Sasaram , Ward No. 21, Ps -
Sasaram Town, Distt- Rohtas At Sasaram
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rajnikant Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
3 31-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
APP for the State, and learned counsel for the opposite party
No. 2.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing
of order dated 10.10.2022 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with
Mahila P.S. Case No. 89 of 2021, whereby and whereunder
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41165 of 2023(3) dt.31-01-2026
2/8
cognizance was taken against the petitioners and others under
Sections 341, 323, 354, 427, 498A, 506 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Secion 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and
summons were issued thereunder.
3. The case is one under Section 498A of IPC and
lodged on the basis of the written report of one Anita Kumari,
who is the O.P. No.2, against her husband Ajit Kumar and other
family members including the present petitioners with
allegations of ill-treatment meted out to her on account of non-
fulfillment of demand of dowry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits, at the
outset, that the petitioners in the present application are the
mother-in-law, who is a senior citizen, married sister-in-law
(nanad) and the brother-in-law (bhaisur) of the opposite party
no.2 and they had never indulged in any act of demand of dowry
or torture inflicted upon the opposite party no.2, as alleged. The
F.I.R. also indicates that there are general and omnibus
allegations leveled by O.P. No.2. It has also been submitted that
as a matter of fact, the husband of the O.P. No.2 had filed an
information petition before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram bearing Information Case No.
718 of 2021 against the O.P. No.2 and her family members four
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41165 of 2023(3) dt.31-01-2026
3/8
months prior to the present case and it is only thereafter, the
present FIR was lodged.
5. It has been specifically stated that petitioner no.1 is
the mother-in-law, aged about 62 year old, suffering from severe
alignments, while petitioner no. 3 is an employee of Postal
Department, who is posted at a relevant time at Bhusawal and
Annexure-4 of has been brought on record to substantiate such
document. So far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, she is a
married sister-in-law and even she reside separately and as such,
these petitioners have no connection with the day-to-day affairs
to the opposite party no. 2 and her husband. It has, thus, been
submitted that totally on general and omnibus allegations made
in the F.I.R. by the O.P. No.2, the cognizance was taken against
all the accused persons including the present petitioners by an
order dated 10.10.2022. It also does not reflect proper
application of judicial mind as the materials appearing against
these petitioners have not been pointed out and rather a
sweeping statement has been made that prima facie offence is
found against all the accused persons, mentioned in column 11
of the charge-sheet.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied
upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41165 of 2023(3) dt.31-01-2026
4/8
Kahkashan Kausar & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported
in (2022) 6 SCC 599, wherein the cases of family members of
the husband of the informant stood quashed considering the
general and omnibus nature of allegations leveled against them
and also considering the fact that in case of matrimonial discord,
there has now become a tendency to employ the provisions
under Section 498A of the IPC as an instrument to settle
personal scores against husband and his relatives.
7. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
opposite party no.2 strongly opposed the present application for
quashing the order taking cognizance against the present
petitioners. It has further been submitted that based upon the
materials collected during course of investigation, the
Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet and on the
basis of which cognizance order was passed and there is no
illegality in the order impugned, as such it warrants no
interference. It has further been submitted that allegations made
in the F.I.R. cannot be said to be completely general and
omnibus as there are certain specific imputations also against
the petitioners.
8. I have perused the entire materials on record,
including the FIR and it appears from a perusal thereof that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41165 of 2023(3) dt.31-01-2026
5/8
present petitioners, who are the family members, being mother-
in-law, married sister-in-law, and brother-in-law of opposite
party no.2 and the allegations against them with regard to
demand of dowry and torture are mostly general and omnibus
and sweeping in nature. There may be certain imputations but
the law laid down by the various judicial pronouncements is
clear to the extent that in case of matrimonial discord between
husband and wife, there is a tendency to rope in all the members
of the family and when such family relationships are sought to
be brought within the ambit, the court should be circumspect,
judicious in examining the matter whether continuance of such
proceedings against family members should be allowed to
proceed. It is no doubt true that importance has to be given to
domestic violence but all the family members and relatives who
are not even residing together with the OP No. 2 and her
husband and have no connection with the day-to-day affairs
ought not to be keeping of the criminal proceedings in the
general and sweeping manner.
9. In the case of Kahkashan Kausar & Ors.
(supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered all the earlier
judgments rendered in connection with quashing of prosecution
against relatives with generalised allegations with no specific
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41165 of 2023(3) dt.31-01-2026
6/8
instances being carved out as against them, starting from the
case of Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. the State of Jharkhand &
Anr. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, wherein it was observed
that it was a matter of common experience that most of the
complaints under Section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the
moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations and
such complaints are filed with certain oblique motives. With
regard to the prosecution faced by the members of the family it
has been clearly laid down in the case of Kahkashan Kausar
(supra) that such persons ought not to go through the rigors of
the prosecution and trial as an eventual acquittal also inflicts
severe scars upon the accused. Paragraph 21 of the above-
mentioned judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Kahkashan Kausar (supra) is being quoted hereunder:
“21. Therefore, upon consideration of the
relevant circumstances and in the absence of any
specific role attributed to the appellant-accused,
it would be unjust if the appellants are forced to
go through the tribulations of a trial i.e. general
and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a
situation where the relatives of the complainant's
husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been
highlighted by this Court in varied instances, that
a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal
also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and
such an exercise must, therefore, be
discouraged.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41165 of 2023(3) dt.31-01-2026
7/8
10. This Court would also gainfully refer to the
recent case of Dara Laxmi Narayana Vs. the State of
Telangana (2025) 3 SCC 735 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
has made it clear that family members of the husband of the
informant ought not to be unnecessarily roped into criminal
proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord. It was further
held that in a case where the allegations are totally bereft of
specific accusations particularly in the background that the
relatives are even staying separately from the informant and her
husband, allowing such malicious and motivated prosecution to
continue would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
The above-mentioned judgment rendered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has been noticed and reiterated in the recent case
of Mange Ram Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (2025)
INSC 962 to hold that continuation of the criminal proceedings
against family members, especially in the absence of specific
and proximate allegations, serves no legitimate purpose and in
appropriate cases the power to quash such proceedings is
essential to uphold fairness and bring about a quietus to personal
disputes.
11. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case and also upon hearing the rival
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41165 of 2023(3) dt.31-01-2026
8/8
contentions of the parties, coupled with the legal spectrum on
the subject concerned, as has been repeatedly reiterated even in
the case of Geddam Jhansi & Anr. Vs. State of Telangana &
Anr. reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 263, this court is of the
considered opinion that continuance of criminal proceedings
against the present petitioners would amount to an abuse of
process of court and cause grave miscarriage of justice, as such,
the impugned order dated 10.10.2022 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in
connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 89 of 2021 is hereby
quashed with regard to the present petitioners.
12. Accordingly, the present application stands
allowed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-
U T
Checking your session…