Patna High Court

Ravikant BhartiversusNisha Kumari and Anr

Decided: 9 July 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

Holding

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners as the allegations were vague and did not disclose any specific offence, thereby constituting an abuse of process.

Summary

The petitioners, who are in‑laws of the complainant, filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 341 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The FIR alleged dowry demands and cruelty but made only vague, omnibus accusations against the petitioners without specifying any overt act by any individual. The High Court examined the scope of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, noting that it is to be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process and that the court need not adjudicate disputed facts at this stage. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that prohibit prosecution of husband’s relatives on the basis of general allegations, the Court held that the material on record did not disclose a prima facie case against each petitioner. Consequently, the magistrate’s order was set aside and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.

Issues considered

Whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to an abuse of the process of the court under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against each of the petitioners.
Whether the High Court can quash the proceedings on the ground of vague and omnibus allegations.

Legislation cited

Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 313, 323, 34, 341, 379, 498A

Subjects

dowry harassment
Section 498A
abuse of process
inherent jurisdiction
quash of criminal proceedings
omnibus allegations
matrimonial dispute

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45588 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2017 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Darbhanga
======================================================
1. Sapna Devi @ Sapna Kumari W/o Devender Kumar, D/o Chhathhu Ravidas
R/o F-5/67, Sultanpuri, C Block, Saraswati Vihar, North West Delhi,
Permanent R/o Rashtriyegunj, Mazar Sharif, Near Station Road,
Phulwarisharif, P.s.- Phulwarisharif, Dist.- Patna
2. Vikash Chandra @ Vikash Chandra Ravi S/o Chhathu Ravidas R/o
Rashtriyegunj, Mazar Sharif, Near Station Road, Phulwarisharif, P.s.-
Phulwarisharif, Dist.- Patna, Presently Residing at Newalal Chauk, Vasant
Vihar Colony, P.S.- Maranga, Purnea
3. Rachna Devi @ Rachna Kumari W/o Sri Kundan Kumar, D/o Chhathu
Ravidas Presently Residing at Dujra, Rajapur Pul, P.S.- Buddhanagar, Patna,
Permanent R/o Rashtriyegunj, Mazar Sharif, Near Station Road,
Phulwarisharif, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, Dist.- Patna
4. Rohit Chandra S/o Chhathu Ravidas R/o Rashtriyegunj, Mazar Sharif, Near
Station Road, Phulwarisharif, P.s.- Phulwarisharif, Dist.- Patna

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Nisha Kumari and Anr daughter of Mahesh Prasad Gupta, resident of
Mohalla- Milan Chowk, Police Station- LaheriyaSarai, District- Darbhanga
and
2. The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jagjit Roshan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Chaubey Jawahar, APP
For the O.P. No.1 : Mr. Rajib Ranjan Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER

11 09-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as

learned APP for the State.

2. The present Criminal Miscellaneous application has

been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for quashing the order dated 05.05.2018 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Sub-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45588 of 2018(11) dt.09-07-2026
2/13

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga, (hereinafter referred

to as ‘Magistrate’) in Criminal Case No. 1547 of 2017, arising

out of Darbhanga Mahila P.S. Case No. 43 of 2017, whereby

cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections

498A, 323, 341 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

against the accused persons including the present petitioners and

directed issuance of summons for appearance of accused

persons.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that O.P. No.1

(informant) alleged that she came in contact with Ravikant

Bharti (co-accused) in the year 2009 while pursuing her studies

and, thereafter, both of them developed a love affair. It has been

alleged that they solemnized marriage on 30.10.2010 according

to Hindu rites and customs without the consent of their

respective family members. It is further alleged that after the

marriage they resided together in a rented house till 2012 and,

subsequently, when O.P. No.1 insisted upon being taken to her

matrimonial home, she was taken there where petitioners herein

(the family members of the husband) objected to the marriage

and allegedly stated that had he married elsewhere they would

have received sufficient dowry and gifts. It is alleged that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45588 of 2018(11) dt.09-07-2026
3/13

present petitioners demanded two kathas of land and Rs.10

lakhs in cash from her parental family and, upon her expressing

inability to fulfil the said demand, she was subjected to physical

and mental cruelty. It is further alleged that thereafter her

alleged husband developed intimacy with another woman and

the family members supported him. It is further alleged that on

16.12.2015, O.P. No.1 was assaulted, her ornaments and

belongings were taken away and she was driven out of her

matrimonial home. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations,

Darbhanga Mahila P.S. Case No. 43 of 2017 came to be

instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323,

341, 379, 313 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on 01.06.2017.

4. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating

Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons for

the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 341 of

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

Prohibition Act. Upon perusal of material available on records

including case diary and charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate,

found prima facie case and accordingly, vide impugned order

dated 05.05.2018 took cognizance of the offences punishable

under Sections 498A, 323, 341 read with section 34 of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45588 of 2018(11) dt.09-07-2026
4/13

Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act and directed issuance of summons against the

accused persons. Aggrieved thereby, the present petitioners have

preferred this present Criminal Miscellaneous Application

invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside

impugned order as well as entire criminal proceeding arising

therefrom.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the

continuation of the criminal proceeding against the present

petitioners amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. It is

submitted that, as per the prosecution version, the present

petitioners are brothers-in-law and married sisters-in-law of O.P.

No.1. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations made

in the FIR as well as the materials collected during investigation

are wholly vague, general and omnibus in nature and no specific

overt act or distinct role has been attributed to any of the present

petitioners. Learned Counsel further submits that except making

bald and sweeping allegations against all the family members,

no material has been brought on record to prima facie establish

the commission of any offence by the present petitioners. It is

further submitted that all the petitioners except petitioner no.4
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45588 of 2018(11) dt.09-07-2026
5/13

have been residing separately on account of their marriage or

employment and have been implicated merely because of their

relationship with the alleged husband.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that

the very foundation of the prosecution case is disputed

inasmuch as the alleged marriage between O.P. No.1 and the

alleged husband has been specifically denied. Learned counsel

further submits that during the course of investigation no

documentary evidence regarding the alleged marriage could be

collected and even the parents of O.P. No.1 did not support the

allegation of marriage. He further submits that the materials

collected during investigation do not disclose any prima facie

case against the present petitioners and the learned Magistrate

has taken cognizance in a mechanical manner without proper

application of judicial mind. Placing reliance upon Rajesh

Sharma and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. reported in

(2018) 10 SCC 472, learned counsel submits that the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held that the tendency to implicate all the

relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes on the basis of

omnibus allegations deserves to be discouraged and that clear

supporting material is required before criminal prosecution is

permitted to continue against such relatives. It is thus submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45588 of 2018(11) dt.09-07-2026
6/13

that impugned order, and entire criminal proceeding arising

therefrom in respect of present petitioners deserve to be set

aside while exercising inherent jurisdiction of this court under

section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

7. Learned counsel for O.P. No.1 opposes the prayer

for quashing and submits that the allegations made in the FIR

and the materials collected during investigation prima facie

disclose the commission of cognizable offences. Learned

counsel further submits that the learned Magistrate has rightly

taken cognizance after considering the materials on record

including case diary and charge-sheet and that the correctness or

otherwise of the allegations cannot be examined in a proceeding

under Section 482 of the Code. It is further submitted that in

D.V. Case No.24 of 2016 filed against husband of O.P. No.1 and

Ors. vide order dated 18.11.2024, the learned Civil Judge,

Senior Division XIV, Patna hold that both the parties have lived

in a relationship that comes under the purview of Domestic

relationship. It is thus submitted that present application is

devoid of any merit and deserves to be set aside.

8. Learned APP for the State also opposes the

application. Learned APP, however, fairly conceded that the

present petitioners are the in-laws of O.P. No.1 and further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45588 of 2018(11) dt.09-07-2026
7/13

submits that this Court may pass appropriate order in the interest

of justice.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as well

as learned APP for the State and perused the materials available

on record. The principal question which falls for consideration

before this Court is whether, in the facts and circumstances of

the present case, continuation of the criminal proceeding against

the present petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process

of the Court so as to warrant exercise of the inherent jurisdiction

of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

10. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is

appropriate here to discuss the scope and ambit of the inherent

powers vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure. The inherent jurisdiction preserved

under Section 482 of the Code is intended to prevent abuse of

the process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice.

Though the power is of wide amplitude, the same is to be

exercised sparingly, with great caution and only in exceptional

circumstances where the Court is satisfied that allowing the

criminal proceeding to continue would result in miscarriage of

justice. At the stage of exercising jurisdiction under Section 482
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45588 of 2018(11) dt.09-07-2026
8/13

of the Code, the High Court is not expected to undertake a

meticulous appreciation of evidence or adjudicate disputed

questions of fact. The Court is only required to examine whether

the allegations contained in the FIR/complaint, if accepted at

their face value, disclose the commission of any cognizable

offence against the accused and whether continuation of the

criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of

the Court.

11. At this stage, it is appropriate 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 Criminal

Procedure Code especially in case of matrimonial offences. 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-A IPC. Noting that the foremost
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45588 of 2018(11) dt.09-07-2026
9/13

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-A IPC 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45588 of 2018(11) dt.09-07-2026
10/13

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. In the present case, it appears that the allegations

against the present petitioners are general, omnibus and sweeping

in nature. Though it has been alleged that all the family members

demanded dowry and subjected O.P. No.1 to physical and mental

cruelty, but neither any specific overt act or distinct role has been

attributed any of the present petitioners. Except making bald

allegations against all the family members collectively, no

particulars have been furnished indicating the individual

involvement of the present petitioners in the alleged commission

of the offences.

13. At this stage, this Court also notices that learned

counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the

very factum of marriage between O.P. No.1 and the alleged

husband is seriously disputed and that the materials collected

during investigation do not substantiate the allegation of

marriage. However, this Court is not inclined to enter into the

said disputed question of fact while exercising jurisdiction under

Section 482 of the Code, as the same can appropriately be gone
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45588 of 2018(11) dt.09-07-2026
11/13

into only upon appreciation of evidence.

14. This Court further notices that, as per the

prosecution version, the present petitioners are brothers-in-law

and married sisters-in-law of O.P. No.1. Even proceeding on the

prosecution version, the allegations levelled against them remain

wholly vague and omnibus. No date, time or circumstance has

been specified as to which of the present petitioners demanded

dowry, subjected O.P. No.1 to cruelty or committed any act

constituting the offences alleged.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly

cautioned that in matrimonial disputes there is an increasing

tendency to implicate every member of the husband's family

irrespective of their actual involvement. It has consistently been

held that prosecution against the relatives of the husband cannot

be sustained merely on the basis of bald, omnibus and sweeping

allegations and that the complaint must disclose clear, specific

and distinct allegations against each accused. The principles laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are intended to ensure that

criminal law is not used as a weapon to harass the relatives of the

husband in the absence of any prima facie material indicating

their involvement.

16. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the

present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45588 of 2018(11) dt.09-07-2026
12/13

allegations against the present petitioners do not satisfy the

essential requirement of disclosing their individual role in the

alleged commission of the offences. The learned Magistrate has

also taken cognizance without recording any reason indicating

how the materials collected during investigation disclose a prima

facie case against each of the present petitioners.

17. In such circumstances, permitting the criminal

prosecution to continue against the present petitioners would

amount to allowing a criminal proceeding to proceed solely on

the basis of vague and generalized allegations. Such continuation

would not only result in unnecessary harassment to the present

petitioners but would also constitute an abuse of the process of

the Court.

18. The present case squarely falls within the

parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of

Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp

(1) SCC 335, particularly the category where the uncontroverted

allegations made in the complaint and the materials collected

during investigation, even if taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety, fail to disclose the commission of any

offence against the accused, thereby warranting exercise of the

inherent jurisdiction of this Court to prevent abuse of the process

of law and to secure the ends of justice.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45588 of 2018(11) dt.09-07-2026
13/13

19. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.05.2018

passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Darbhanga, in Criminal Case No. 1547 of 2017, arising out of

Darbhanga Mahila P.S. Case No. 43 of 2017, so far as it relates to

the present petitioners, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the

entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, qua, the present

petitioners stands quashed.

20. The present criminal miscellaneous application is,

accordingly, allowed.

21. Interim order(s), if any, stands vacated.

22. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court

concerned forthwith for needful and compliance.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.