Patna High Court
KAFIL AHMAD @ KAPIL AHMAD @ KAPILversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- WITHDRAWN
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The High Court quashed the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, holding that continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of process of law.
Summary
The petitioners, who are the father‑in‑law, mother‑in‑law, sister‑in‑law of the complainant and an unrelated woman, filed a petition to quash a summons issued under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complaint alleged that the husband’s family demanded dowry and abused the complainant, but the petitioners argued that the allegations against them were vague, general and omnibus with no specific acts attributed to them. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that prohibit roping in family members without concrete allegations and that favour quashing proceedings where parties have settled, the Court examined whether the continuation of the criminal proceeding would constitute an abuse of process. The Court held that the summons was issued without a judicious assessment of specific evidence and that the case, being essentially a matrimonial dispute, should be quashed under the inherent powers of the High Court. Accordingly, the order dated 31‑01‑2020 was set aside and the criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a summons issued under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act can be quashed when the allegations against family members are general and omnibus.
- Whether the High Court can invoke its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings in a matrimonial dispute where parties have settled.
- Whether continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- Section 498A IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- quash of criminal proceeding
- abuse of process
- Section 482 CrPC
- family members liability
- matrimonial dispute
- settlement
- criminal miscellaneous
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.466 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-504 Year-2019 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE District-
Rohtas
======================================================
1. Binod Singh @ Bindeshwari Chandrabanshi @ Binod Chandrabanshi Son
Of Late Tapeshwari Chandrabanshi Village- Bindu Bigaha Po And Ps Haider
Nagar District Palamu Jharkhand
2. Smt. Sushila Devi @ Smt. Sushila Devi Wife Of Bindeshwari
Chandrabanshi @ Binod Chandravanshi Village- Bindu Bigaha Po And Ps
Haider Nagar District Palamu Jharkhand
3. Priyanka Kumari Daughter Of Bindeshwari Chandrabanshi @ Binod
Chandrabanshi Village- Bindu Bigaha Po And Ps Haider Nagar District
Palamu Jharkhand
4. Punam Gupta @ Punam Devi Wife Of Madan Gupta Resident Of B-11,
Ankur Bihar, D.L.F. Ankur Biarh, Ghaziabad, City North East Delhi, P.S.
Karawal Nagar, North East Delhi, Mo-4, Gali No.2 Chauhan Patti, Ps- Sonia
Bihar, New Delhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar BIHAR
2. Asha Devi Wife Of Ravindra Chandrabanshi Resi Vill- Po-Panssar, Ps-
Karakat(Gorai), Rohtas
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rabindra Kumar, Adv.
For the informant : Ms. Usha Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Kanhaiya Pandey, Adv.
For the State : Mr.Akhileshwar Dayal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 20-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 and learned A.P.P.
for the State.
2. The petitioners have made the following prayer in
this application :-
“That this is an application for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.466 of 2024(3) dt.20-01-2026
2/7
quashing / declaring the order dated
31.01.2020 passed in Complaint Case
No. 504/2019 by which the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj,
Rohtas issued summon to the
petitioners saying offence under
Sections 498(A) of the I.P.C and 3/4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act is prima
facie made out against them”
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that they all
including the husband of the O.P. No. 2 had been demanding
dowry immediately after marriage and they were pressurizing
her to bring Rs. 2,00,000/- from her father. It has further been
alleged that all the accused persons used to insult and abuse the
complainant on various occasions and thereafter she was ousted
from the house.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the
petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the father-in-law, mother-in-law
and the sister-in-law of the O.P. No. 2 while the petitioner no. 4
has no concern with the family of the petitioner nos. 1 to 3. It
has next been submitted that the petitioners have falsely been
implicated with general and omnibus allegation and from bare
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.466 of 2024(3) dt.20-01-2026
3/7
perusal of the complaint case, it would be evident that barring
few lines with regard to general nature of allegation of demand
of dowry no specific allegation has been made against the
petitioners especially the petitioner nos. 3 and 4. Learned
counsel for the petitioners points out that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has come down very heavily on such cases where the
entire family members of the husband of the complainant/
victim has been made accused in such matrimonial dispute
without there being any specific allegation of overt act alleged
against them. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken strong
objection to the action of the trial court also in taking
cognizance against those relatives of husband and passes orders
mechanically without verifying the evidence with regard to the
allegation levelled against the accused persons, especially
immediate relative or otherwise. Learned counsel further
submits that the issuance of summon against the petitioner vide
order dated 31.01.2022 after taking cognizance under Section
498(A) of the I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act does not
confirm to the various judicial pronouncements. It would be
evident that the same has been passed without application of
judicious mind.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.466 of 2024(3) dt.20-01-2026
4/7
the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Geeta Malhotra and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Ors. reported in (2013) 1 PLJR (SC) 10 wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court taking note of the fact that FIR
disclosing mere casual reference of names of the brother, sister
and family members in a matrimonial dispute without any
allegations of their active involvement in the offence is not
sufficient for taking cognizance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
further noted that when tendency is to rope in the entire family
members in a matrimonial disputes such proceedings are liable
to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
allegations in the present case are general and omnibus.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.
No. 2 has vehemently opposed saying that there is certain
allegation levelled against the petitioners. However, it is not
disputed that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature.
7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and taking into account the fact that the allegation levelled
against the petitioners are general and omnibus merely because
they happen to be close to the husband of the O.P. No. 2 and
also taking into account the various judicial pronouncements
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, continuation of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.466 of 2024(3) dt.20-01-2026
5/7
present proceeding shall amount to abuse of the process of law.
8. This Court is reminded of the various judicial
pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and one
passed in the case of Narinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of
Punjab and Anr reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has given the guidelines and laid down
the principles by which the High Court would be guided in
giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties
and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., while
accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings and in
the alternative refusing to accept the settlement with direction to
continue with the criminal proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court further elaborated that when the parties have reached the
settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal
proceeding is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to
secure:
(I) ends of justice,
(II) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 29.4
observed as under:
“29.4. On the other hand, those
criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominantly civil character, particularly those
arising out of commercial transactions or arising
out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.466 of 2024(3) dt.20-01-2026
6/7
should be quashed when the parties have resolved
their entire disputes among themselves.”
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent case of
Mange Ram and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.
(2025 INSC 962), after referring to the earlier judgments on the
issues of family members of the husband being unnecessarily
roped into criminal proceedings in matrimonial discord has
further laid down that continuation of criminal proceedings in a
case where the parties have entered into compromise, even if the
case is of non-compoundable offences, especially in matters of
matrimony, it would only be an exercise in futility and the
justice demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an
end and peace is restored.
11. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab
reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held that the High Court invoking its inherent power may quash
the criminal proceedings if it is satisfied that on the face of such
settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being
convicted and if the criminal proceedings are not quashed,
justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Naushey Ali and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78 has observed that in a case where
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.466 of 2024(3) dt.20-01-2026
7/7
the parties have amicably settled their dispute the proceeding
with the trial would be futile and it would be a grave abuse of
process of law if the proceedings are not quashed.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
Order taking cognizance and the continuation of the criminal
proceeding as far as the petitioners are concerned, would
amount to abuse of the process of law.
14. Accordingly, the present Cr. Miscellaneous is
allowed. The order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj, Rohtas, in
Complaint Case No. 504/2019, is hereby quashed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Gautam/manoj-
U T
Checking your session…