Patna High Court
Renu DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court set aside the magistrate's order and quashed the criminal proceedings as an abuse of process.
Summary
The petitioner Renu Devi filed an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash a magistrate's order that had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 323, 341, 504 and 506 IPC based on a complaint alleging dowry‑related harassment and threats. The petitioner contended that the complaint was fabricated, delayed, and contained contradictory statements, rendering it mala fide. The Court examined the Supreme Court’s Bhajan Lal categories for exercising inherent powers under CrPC Section 482, as well as the judgments in Geeta Mehrotra and Inder Mohan Goswami. Finding the allegations vague, lacking specific particulars, and indicative of a matrimonial dispute rather than a cognizable offence, the Court held that the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process. Consequently, the order of the Judicial Magistrate dated 28‑03‑2022 was set aside and the criminal proceedings were quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether the complaint under Sections 323, 341, 504 and 506 IPC discloses a cognizable offence against the petitioner sufficient to justify taking cognizance.
- Whether the criminal proceedings are mala fide and constitute an abuse of process warranting quash under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and inherent powers under CrPC Section 482.
- Whether the delay in filing the complaint and the contradictions in the complainant's statements affect the credibility of the prosecution case.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 155, 156, 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 504, 506
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- criminal procedure
- quash of proceedings
- abuse of process
- inherent powers
- Section 528 BNS Act
- matrimonial dispute
- false complaint
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-294 Year-2021 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT
District- East Champaran
======================================================
Renu Devi, D/o Mohan Prasad, R/O- Vill- Mohalla old Exchange Road, Ward
no. 18, P.S- Sitamarhi, Distt- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Dileep Gupta S/o Late Kamla Prasad R/o vill - Sriram Path, Koiriya Tola,
ward no. 25, P.S. - Raxaul, Distt.- East Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate
Mr.Md.Farooq, Advocate
Mr.Akshay Tripathi, Advocate
Mr.Himanshu Ranjan, Advocate
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms.Renu Kumari, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-01-2026
Heard Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, learned counsel for the
O.P.No.2 and Ms. Renu Kumari, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present application under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred
for quashing the order dated 28.03.2022, whereby the learned
Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Raxaul at Motihari in Complaint
Case No. 294/2021 (Enquiry No. 02/22) has taken cognizance
of the offence under section 323,341,504 and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code and issued processes against the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46 of 2025 dt.05-01-2026
2/7
3. The prosecution case, as alleged, is that the
complainant, who is the father of the daughter-in-law of the
petitioner, has submitted a compliant petition stating therein that
his daughter was subjected to harassment on account of demand
of dowry and she was driven out from her matrimonial home,
pursuant to which an FIR was lodged on 21.03.2021. It is
further alleged that on 15.09.2021, thereafter, the complainant
along with his daughters went to the house of the petitioner to
take the clothes of his daughter and whereupon the petitioner
allegedly closed the gate, abused them and threatened them for
dire consequences. On the basis of the said allegations, the
present complaint has been instituted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the entire prosecution story is false, fabricated and malicious,
and has been instituted only to harass the petitioner. It is
contended that there is no specific or overt allegation against the
petitioner which would constitute the alleged offences. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submits that the complaint has
been instituted after an unexplained delay of nine days and no
satisfactory explanation for such delay has been explained,
which further creates doubt regarding the genuineness of the
prosecution case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46 of 2025 dt.05-01-2026
3/7
submits that a material contradiction exists in the case of the
complainant. While in the complaint petition it has been stated
that no injury was sustained, but in the Solemn Affirmation, it is
alleged that injuries were sustained. Such inconsistency goes to
the root of the prosecution case and seriously affects its
credibility.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and
Others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein categories
were laid down for exercise of inherent powers to quash
criminal proceedings, including cases where allegations are
inherently improbable and proceedings are maliciously
instituted to harass the accused.
6. Reliance has also been placed upon in the case of
Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of U.P., reported in (2012) 10
SCC 741, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
mere casual reference to family members in matrimonial
disputes, without specific allegations of active involvement,
does not justify criminal prosecution. The Court cautioned
against the growing tendency to implicate all family members in
matrimonial disputes.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46 of 2025 dt.05-01-2026
4/7
7. Learned counsel for the State and learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer made on
behalf of the petitioner and they have supported the impugned
order.
8. I have considered the submissions advanced by
the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials
available on record. On perusal of the complaint and the
statements recorded during inquiry, it appears that the present
complaint case has been instituted mala fide, arising out of
matrimonial discord between the parties. The allegations are
general and omnibus in nature, lacking specific particulars, and
do not prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of the
alleged offences so far as the petitioner is concerned.
9. Further, the order taking cognizance passed by
the learned Magistrate is cryptic and non-speaking. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others v.
Bhajan Lal and Others (supra), in para 102, held as under:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted
and reproduced above, we have given the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46 of 2025 dt.05-01-2026
5/7
such power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined
and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the
first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out a case
against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first
information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the
FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do
not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of
a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46 of 2025 dt.05-01-2026
6/7
FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of
the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in
the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him
due to private and personal grudge.”
10. In the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr.
v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that inherent
powers may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law
and to secure the ends of justice. The powers possessed by the
High Court under section 482 of the Code are very wide and the
very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its
exercise. The court must be careful to see that its decision in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46 of 2025 dt.05-01-2026
7/7
exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent
power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and settled
principles of law as also the various pronouncements made by
Hon’ble Supreme Court herein above, this Court finds substance
in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and as such
this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the
criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to
abuse of the process of the court and would not serve the ends
of justice.
12. In the light of facts and circumstances,
discussed above, the petitioner has made out a case so as to
interfere with the order taking cognizance dated 28.03.2022,
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Raxaul at
Motihari in Complaint Case No. 294/2021 (Enquiry No. 02/22).
Accordingly, it is set aside.
13. The present Criminal Miscellaneous No. 46 of
2025 stands allowed.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.01.2026
Transmission Date 13.01.2026
Checking your session…