Patna High Court
Sakindra Ram and OrsversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The order of cognizance dated 23.11.2015 against the petitioners is quashed.
Summary
The complainant, Pinki Kumari, alleged that her husband and his relatives demanded dowry and subjected her to cruelty and assault, leading to a complaint under Sections 498A, 323, 379, 504 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 498A and issued summons against the husband’s brother‑in‑law, sister‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law. The petitioners filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quash of the cognizance order, contending that the allegations against them were vague, omnibus and lacked specific acts. The High Court examined the complaint, affirmation and inquiry statements and held that no particular overt act was attributed to the petitioners, making the allegations insufficient to sustain a charge under Section 498A. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that prohibit prosecution based on general allegations in matrimonial disputes, the Court quashed the order of cognizance as an abuse of process. The application was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of cognizance under Section 498A against the petitioners can be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 CrPC.
- Whether the allegations in the complaint constitute a prima facie case against the petitioners.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 379, 498A, 504
Subjects
- Section 498A
- Dowry harassment
- Quash of criminal proceeding
- Inherent jurisdiction
- Section 482 CrPC
- Matrimonial dispute
- Abuse of process
- General allegations
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41836 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1171 Year-2014 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE District-
Vaishali
======================================================
1. Sakindra Ram, S/o Parikshan Ram,
2. Premsila Devi @ Paramshila Devi, W/o Sakindra Ram, Both Resident of
Village- Dighi, Chakfajullah, P.S.- Hajipur Sadar, District- Vaishali.
3. Sona Devi, W/o Nagendra Ram, resident of Village- Lavapur Salempur, P.S.
Mahnar, District- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pinki Kumari, W/o Ram Ratan Ram @ Ratan Kumar, Resident of Village-
Dighi Chakfajullah, P.S.- Hajipur Sadar, District- Vaishali.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ravish Mishra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
10 30-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 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 invoking
the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the order
dated 23.11.2015 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Vaishali at
Hajipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Magistrate’) in connection
with Tr. No. 4586 of 2014 arising out of Complaint Case No.
1171 of 2014, wherein the learned Magistrate took cognizance
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41836 of 2018(10) dt.30-04-2026
2/12
of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioners herein and other
accused persons and summons have been directed to be issued.
3. The brief facts of the case, as emerging from the
complaint petition, are that the complainant (O.P. No.2), namely
Pinki Kumari, was married to one Ramratan Ram (co-accused)
on 09.02.2011 according to Hindu rites and customs. It is
alleged that after the marriage, she resided at her matrimonial
home and a male child was born out of the wedlock. The
grievance of the complainant (O.P. No.2) is that after some time
of the birth of the child, the husband along with the present
petitioners and other family members allegedly demanded a sum
of Rs. 50,000/- as dowry and, upon non-fulfilment of the said
demand, subjected her to cruelty, abuse and physical assault. It
is further alleged that on 19.04.2014, she was ousted from her
matrimonial home after being assaulted and her ornaments were
allegedly snatched, whereafter she took shelter at her parental
house. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the complaint
case bearing Complaint Case No.1171 of 2014 came to be
instituted for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 379, 504
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41836 of 2018(10) dt.30-04-2026
3/12
4. Upon perusal of the materials available on record,
including the complaint petition, solemn affirmation of the
complainant and the statements of the inquiry witnesses
recorded during the course of inquiry, the learned Magistrate
found prima facie grounds to proceed and accordingly took
cognizance of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and issued summons against the accused
persons, including the present petitioners, who are brother-in-
law (petitioner no.1), sister-in-law (petitioner no.2) and mother-
in-law (petitioner no.3) of the O.P. No.2, vide the impugned
order dated 23.11.2015. Aggrieved by the said order of
cognizance, the petitioners herein have preferred the present
Criminal Miscellaneous Application invoking the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the impugned order of
cognizance.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
impugned order is wholly unsustainable in the eyes of law, as
the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in a mechanical
manner without proper application of judicial mind. It is
submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint
petition are taken at their face value, the same are general,
omnibus and vague in nature, lacking specific attribution of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41836 of 2018(10) dt.30-04-2026
4/12
overt acts against the present petitioners, who are the brother-in-
law (nandoshi), married sister-in-law (nanad) and mother-in-
law of the complainant/O.P. No.2. Learned counsel further
submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated only on
account of their relationship with the husband and no specific
instance of cruelty or demand of dowry has been attributed to
them so as to attract the ingredients of Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits
that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the
petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of the Court,
as the dispute, if any, is purely matrimonial in nature arising out
of trivial domestic discord between husband and wife. He
submits that the materials collected during inquiry, including the
solemn affirmation and statements of witnesses, do not disclose
any prima facie case against the petitioners. It is thus submitted
that the impugned order of cognizance is fit to be quashed to
secure the ends of justice.
7. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has opposed the
prayer for quashing and submits that the complaint petition
clearly discloses a prima facie case against the petitioners. It is
submitted that there are specific allegations regarding demand
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41836 of 2018(10) dt.30-04-2026
5/12
of dowry, cruelty and assault, and at this stage of cognizance, a
meticulous examination of evidence is neither warranted nor
permissible. Learned counsel further submits that the learned
Magistrate, upon due consideration of the materials on record
has rightly taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498A
of the Indian Penal Code, which calls for no interference by this
Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
8. Learned APP for the State submits that the
impugned order has been passed after due consideration of the
materials available on record and the learned Magistrate has
rightly found a prima facie case against the accused persons.
However, it is fairly submitted that this Court may pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law on the basis of the
materials available on record.
9. Having considered the rival submissions and on
examination of the record, it is trite that the inherent jurisdiction
of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is to be invoked with great caution and only to
prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends
of justice. At the stage of cognizance, the Court is required to
ascertain whether the allegations, taken at their face value,
disclose the commission of any offence and not to undertake a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41836 of 2018(10) dt.30-04-2026
6/12
detailed evaluation of the evidence or its reliability.
Nonetheless, where the allegations are general in nature, lack
specific particulars, or fail to constitute the essential ingredients
of the alleged offence, this Court would be justified in
exercising its inherent powers to quash such proceedings.
10. It is equally well settled that in cases arising out of
matrimonial disputes, the tendency to implicate all family
members of the husband without specific and distinct
allegations has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in a catena of decisions. The Hon’ble Apex Court has
consistently held that vague and omnibus allegations, without
any prima facie material indicating active involvement, would
not justify the continuation of criminal proceedings against such
relatives. However, it is equally settled that where the
allegations are inherently improbable, absurd, or do not disclose
the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, or where the
proceeding appears to be manifestly attended with mala fide and
instituted with ulterior motive, the Court would be justified in
exercising its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the
process of law.
11. At this stage, it is apposite to reproduce some
relevant paragraphs of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41836 of 2018(10) dt.30-04-2026
7/12
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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41836 of 2018(10) dt.30-04-2026
8/12
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
the case over and above the averments and,
if need be, with due care and
circumspection, to try and read between the
lines.”
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41836 of 2018(10) dt.30-04-2026
9/12
SCC 488] , authored by one of us (J.B.
Pardiwala, J.), the legal principle applicable
apropos Section 482 CrPC was examined.
Therein, it was observed that when an
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. Upon careful consideration of the allegations
made in the complaint petition as well as the materials collected
during the inquiry, it transpires that the accusations against the
present petitioners are largely general and omnibus in nature.
The complaint, though containing allegations of demand of
dowry and cruelty, does not disclose any specific overt act
attributed to the petitioners, who are the brother-in-law, married
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41836 of 2018(10) dt.30-04-2026
10/12
sister-in-law and mother-in-law of the O.P. No.2. The statements
recorded on solemn affirmation and during inquiry also do not
bring on record any distinct role played by the petitioners so as
to satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code. The implication of the
petitioners appears to be primarily on account of their
relationship with the husband, which, in absence of specific
allegations, cannot be a ground to proceed against them.
14. Furthermore, this Court finds that the learned
Magistrate, while passing the impugned order, has not adverted
to the absence of specific materials against the petitioners and
has proceeded in a routine manner. In cases arising out of
matrimonial disputes, there is a growing tendency to implicate
all family members without distinction, and therefore, the Court
dealing with such disputes is required to scrutinize the materials
with greater care at the stage of cognizance. In the present case,
continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners,
in the absence of concrete and specific allegations, would
amount to misuse of the process of law.
15. In this context, this Court is guided by the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors., reported in 1992
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41836 of 2018(10) dt.30-04-2026
11/12
Supp (1) SCC 335 and Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947,
wherein illustrative categories have been enumerated where the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings. One
such category is where the allegations made in the complaint,
even if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do not
prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused. Another category covers cases where the criminal
proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or instituted
with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. Applying the
said principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds
that the allegations against the petitioners are general and
omnibus in nature without any specific role attributed to them,
and thus allowing the prosecution to continue against them
would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
16. Resultantly, in view of the discussions made
hereinabove and in the light of the settled legal principles, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated
23.11.2015 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur
in connection with Tr. No. 4586 of 2014, arising out of
Complaint Case No. 1171 of 2014, so far as it relates to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41836 of 2018(10) dt.30-04-2026
12/12
present petitioners, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Consequently, the said order of cognizance qua the present
petitioners is hereby quashed.
17. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application,
accordingly, stands allowed.
18. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Court concerned forthwith for needful.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-
U T
Checking your session…