Patna High Court

Shushila Devi and OrsversusState Of Bihar and Anr

Decided: 12 May 2026
Disposal: PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
Bench: SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

Holding

The Court held that the allegations against petitioners 1‑3 are vague and omnibus, lacking specific overt acts, and therefore the criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process and are quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

Summary

The daughter of the complainant married Abhimanyu Singh in 2011; later she alleged dowry harassment and filed an FIR under Sections 323, 341, 354, 498A and 34 IPC. The magistrate took cognizance against the husband and his mother‑in‑law, sister‑in‑law and brother‑in‑law. The three relatives filed a quash petition under Section 482 CrPC, contending that the allegations were vague, the victim was under psychiatric treatment, and an inquiry report showed she was being treated properly by her in‑laws. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that the FIR did not disclose specific overt acts against the in‑laws and that proceeding would amount to abuse of process. Consequently, the order of cognizance was set aside and the criminal proceedings against petitioners 1‑3 were quashed, while the application of petitioner 4 was dismissed as withdrawn.

Issues considered

The FIR and accompanying materials disclose any specific act constituting the offences alleged against the in‑laws?
Whether the criminal proceedings against the in‑laws amount to an abuse of process warranting quash under Section 482 CrPC?
Whether the magistrate's order taking cognizance should be set aside.

Legislation cited

Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 354, 498A

Subjects

dowry harassment
Section 498A
quash petition
inherent jurisdiction
abuse of process
matrimonial dispute
Section 482 CrPC
criminal procedure

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 41858 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-100 Year-2016 Thana- BELSAND District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
1. Shushila Devi, Wife of Sikandar Singh.
2. Rekha Devi, Wife of Dharmendra Singh.
3. Dharmendra Singh @ Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Son of Sikandar Singh,
4. Abhimanyu Singh @ Chhote Babu, Son of Sikandar Singh, All R/o Village-
Dumra, P.S.- Belsand, Dsitirct- Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pramila Devi, Wife of Hemendra Kumar, R/o Manikchauk, P.S.-
Runisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi.

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sri Ram Anurag Singh, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Puspendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER

8 12-05-2026 Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission

to withdraw the quashing application with respect to petitioner

no. 4, namely, Abhimanyu Singh @ Chhote Babu.

2. Permission is accorded.

3. Accordingly, the present quashing application with

respect to petitioner no. 4, namely, Abhimanyu Singh @ Chhote

Babu is dismissed as withdrawn.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner nos. 1 to 3

and the learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 as well as learned APP

for the State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41858 of 2018(8) dt.12-05-2026
2/13

5. The present application is filed under Section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter will be

referred to as Cr.P.C.) for quashing the order dated 11.04.2017

passed by the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Sadar, Sitamarhi

(hereinafter will be referred to as “Magistrate”) in connection

with Belsand P.S. Case No. 100 of 2016, wherein the learned

Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 323,

498A, 354, 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 against the petitioners, who are in-laws of the daughter of

O.P. No.2.

6. Factual matrix giving rise to the present case is that

the marriage of the daughter of O.P. No.2 was solemnized with

Abhimanyu Singh @ Chhote Babu on 29.05.2011 in accordance

with Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that sufficient dowry

was given at the time of marriage and after vidagri she started

living at her matrimonial house wherein she was blessed with a

female child from the wedlock. It is further alleged that the

accused persons (petitioners herein) started torturing on the

pretext of demand of dowry especially a vehicle and a sum of

Rs. 1 lakh. Being oppressed and vexed by the torture and cruelty

by her in-laws, she started living at her parental house wherein

she tried to settle the dispute but the accused persons
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41858 of 2018(8) dt.12-05-2026
3/13

(petitioners herein) vehemently denied any settlement until their

demand is fulfilled. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation,

informant (O.P. No. 2) who is mother of the victim got

registered an F.I.R. bearing Belsand P.S. Case No. 100 of 2016

under Sections 341, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code. Upon investigation, the police submitted charge-

sheet.

7. Upon perusal of the materials available on record,

learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under

Sections 341, 323, 498A, 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code against the four accused persons (petitioners herein)

namely Sushila Devi (petitioner no.1), Rekha Devi (petitioner

no.2), Dharmendra Singh @ Dharmendra Kumar Singh

(petitioner no.3) and Abhimanyu Singh @ Chhote Babu

(petitioner no.4). Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned

order of cognizance dated 11.04.2017 passed by the learned

Magistrate, the petitioners have preferred the present Criminal

Miscellaneous Application before this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner nos.1 to 3

submits that the present prosecution is wholly malicious and has

been instituted only with an oblique motive to harass the family

members of the husband. He submits that except petitioner no.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41858 of 2018(8) dt.12-05-2026
4/13

4, who was the husband of the victim, has already withdrawn

the present application, the remaining petitioners are mother-in-

law, gotini and bhaisur of the victim against whom only vague,

general and omnibus allegations have been levelled in the F.I.R.

without attributing any specific overt act. Learned counsel

further submits that the marriage was solemnized in the year

2011 and the couple lead conjugal life for several years and

gave birth to a female child, which itself demonstrates that the

relationship between the parties remained cordial for a

considerable period of time. It is submitted that the allegations

regarding assault and torture are absolutely concocted and no

independent material has surfaced during investigation to

substantiate the same.

9. Learned counsel further submits that the victim was

under psychiatric treatment at Muzaffarpur and Ranchi during

the relevant period and she had been suffering from mental

illness since prior thereto, which is evident from the medical

prescriptions on the record. Learned counsel next submits that

pursuant to the direction of the learned Magistrate, inquiry was

conducted by the Mahila Help Line, Sitamarhi in Misc. Case

No. 3 of 2017, wherein the victim herself disclosed that she had

been treated properly by her in-laws and the inquiry report
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41858 of 2018(8) dt.12-05-2026
5/13

further records that on several occasions she had behaved

violently and even attempted to harm herself and her child. It is

also submitted that petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are separate in mess

and despite that they were taking care of the minor daughter of

the victim. On the strength of the aforesaid facts, learned

counsel submits that continuance of the criminal proceeding

against the petitioner nos.1 to 3 would amount to abuse of the

process of the Court and the impugned order taking cognizance

is fit to be quashed.

10. Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 supports the

impugned order and submits that the learned Magistrate has

rightly taken cognizance of offence after considering the

materials available on record which does not warrant any

interference by this Court.

11. Learned APP for the State fairly submits that the

petiioner nos.1 to 3 are relatives of the husband of daughter of

the O.P. No.2, therefore, appropriate order may be passed in the

facts and circumstances of the present case.

12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

upon perusal of the materials available on record, this Court

finds that the present application has been preferred for

quashing of the order taking cognizance as well as the entire
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41858 of 2018(8) dt.12-05-2026
6/13

criminal proceeding in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It is well settled that the inherent

power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is of wide

amplitude and is required to be exercised sparingly, carefully

and with great caution so as to prevent abuse of the process of

the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. At the same

time, where the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the materials

brought on record do not disclose the essential ingredients of the

alleged offences or where continuation of the criminal

proceeding would amount to misuse of the judicial process, the

High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent

jurisdiction for quashing of the proceeding.

13. It is further well settled that in cases arising out of

matrimonial disputes involving offences under Section 498A of

the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, the inherent power of quashing is to be

exercised with due care and caution. The Court is required to

examine whether the allegations made in the complaint petition,

if taken on their face value, prima facie constitute the

ingredients of the offences alleged. However, where the

allegations are found to be vague, omnibus and general in nature

without any specific attribution of overt act against the accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41858 of 2018(8) dt.12-05-2026
7/13

persons, particularly against the relatives of the husband,

continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse

of the process of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of

decisions has repeatedly cautioned against the tendency of

implicating all family members of the husband in matrimonial

disputes without disclosing their specific role in the alleged

occurrence.

14. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41858 of 2018(8) dt.12-05-2026
8/13

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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41858 of 2018(8) dt.12-05-2026
9/13

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.”

15. Similarly, 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 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,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41858 of 2018(8) dt.12-05-2026
10/13

if need be, with due care and
circumspection, to try and read between the
lines.”
(emphasis supplied)

16. Upon consideration of the allegations levelled in

the FIR, this Court finds that except petitioner no. 4, the

husband of the victim who has already withdrawn the present

application, the remaining petitioners are the mother-in-law,

gotini and bhaisur of the victim. So far as these petitioners are

concerned, the allegations made in the written report are general

and omnibus in nature and no specific overt act has been

attributed to them so as to prima facie constitute the offences

alleged. It further appears that the marriage between the parties

was solemnized in the year 2011 and the victim continued in her

matrimonial house for several years and a female child was also

born out of the wedlock. The F.I.R. has admittedly been

instituted by the mother of the victim and not by the victim

herself.

17. This Court further finds from the materials

brought on record that the petitioner nos.1 to 3 have annexed

prescriptions indicating that the victim was under medical

treatment during the relevant period of the alleged occurrence.

Moreover, the inquiry report submitted by the Mahila Help

Line, Sitamarhi pursuant to the direction of the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41858 of 2018(8) dt.12-05-2026
11/13

Magistrate reflects that the victim herself had disclosed before

the authority concerned that she was being treated properly by

her in-laws. The report further indicates that petitioner nos.2 and

3 were residing separately in mess and were also taking care of

the minor daughter of the victim. Though the truthfulness of

such defence materials cannot be conclusively adjudicated in a

proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the same cannot be

completely ignored while examining whether continuation of

the criminal proceeding against the present petitioners would

amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

18. This Court also notices that no specific material

has been brought on record during investigation to distinguish

the role of the petitioner nos.1 to 3 from the general allegations

made in the F.I.R. In matrimonial disputes, it is now well settled

that the tendency to implicate all family members of the

husband without specific allegations has repeatedly been

deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the facts and

circumstances of the present case, continuation of the criminal

proceeding against the remaining petitioners appears to be an

unnecessary prolongation of criminal prosecution without

sufficient prima facie material against them.

19. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41858 of 2018(8) dt.12-05-2026
12/13

Court finds that the present case squarely falls within the

categories illustratively laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors.,

reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly where the

allegations made in the F.I.R. are so general and omnibus in

nature that no prudent person can reach a just conclusion

regarding commission of offence by the present petitioners and

where continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to

abuse of the process of the Court. The materials available on

record, especially the absence of specific allegations against the

remaining petitioners coupled with the inquiry report of the

Mahila Help Line, persuade this Court to hold that allowing the

prosecution to continue against these petitioners would not serve

the ends of justice.

20. Accordingly, the order dated 11.04.2017 passed in

connection with Belsand P.S. Case No. 100 of 2016 by the

learned S.D.J.M., Sadar, Sitamarhi, so far as it relates to the

present petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3, is hereby set aside.

Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of the

aforesaid case, including the order taking cognizance against the

petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 stands quashed.

21. The application is, accordingly, allowed to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41858 of 2018(8) dt.12-05-2026
13/13

aforesaid extent.

22. Since petitioner no.4 has withdrawn the present

application, this order shall not prejudice or affect the criminal

proceeding pending against him and the learned Magistrate shall

proceed in accordance with law so far as petitioner no.4 is

concerned.

23. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the

court concerned forthwith for needful.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Utkarsh/- Koustav/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.