Patna High Court

Gorakh Kumar Mahto @ Gorakh Mahto 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 the in‑laws were vague and omnibus, lacking specific acts, and therefore the cognizance order was quashed as an abuse of process.

Summary

The High Court considered an application to quash the trial court's order taking cognizance of offences under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the in‑laws of the complainant. The complainant alleged that after her marriage, the petitioners demanded additional dowry and subjected her to cruelty, but the complaint contained only vague, omnibus allegations without specific acts attributed to each petitioner. The court examined the scope of its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, citing recent Supreme Court pronouncements that in‑laws cannot be prosecuted on sweeping allegations in matrimonial disputes. Finding the allegations against petitioners 2 to 6 to be unspecific and the proceeding an abuse of process, the court quashed the cognizance order and set aside the criminal proceedings against them. The application was allowed, and any interim orders were vacated.

Issues considered

Whether the complaint's general allegations against the husband’s relatives disclose a specific offence warranting cognizance under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Whether the High Court can quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC in view of alleged misuse of the law in matrimonial disputes.
Whether continuation of the prosecution against the in‑laws would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Dowry harassment
Section 498A
Quashing of criminal proceedings
Section 482 CrPC
Abuse of process
In‑laws liability
Matrimonial dispute

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53445 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2526 Year-2015 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Gorakh Kumar Mahto @ Gorakh Mahto, Son of Muneshwar Mahto,
2. Muneshwar Mahto, Son of Rajdeo Mahto,
3. Sant Devi @ Ramjhari Devi, Wife of Muneshwar Mahto,
4. Rohit Mahto @ Rohit Kumar, Son of Muneshwar Mahto,
5. Naval Kumar Mahto @ Naval Mahto @ Nawal Kumar, Son of Munesh
Mato,
6. Suman Devi, Wife of Naval Mahto, All R/o Village- Kalyanpur P.O.-
Baijalpur, P.S.- Sonepur, Distt- Saran.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Ruby Kumari @ Rubi Devi, D/o Radhakant Prasad, R/o Village- Chakbasu
Kachisarai, P.S.- Mithanpura, Distt- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Akshat Arghya, Advocate
Mr. Manish Kumar Paswan, Advocate
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Anand Kishore Chaudhary, Advocate
Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Chandrasen Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER

7 12-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as

learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present application has been preferred for

quashing of the order dated 23.01.2016 (hereinafter referred to

as ‘Impugned order’) passed by the learned S.D.J.M., East

Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) in

connection with Tr. No. 2436 of 2016 arising out of Complaint
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53445 of 2018(7) dt.12-05-2026
2/9

Case No. 2526 of 2015, whereby cognizance has been taken for

the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal

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

1961 against the petitioners.

3. Vide order dated 27.09.2018, the present

application, so far as petitioner no. 1, namely the husband of the

complainant, is concerned, stood dismissed as withdrawn with

liberty to raise all the issues available to him before the learned

Trial Court at the time of framing of charge. Thus, the present

application survives only on behalf of petitioner nos. 2 to 6.

4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the marriage

of the complainant (O.P. No.2) was solemnized with Gorakh

Mahto on 22.05.2013 according to Hindu rites and customs and

sufficient gifts and articles were given by the family members of

O.P. No.2 at the time of marriage. It is alleged that after the

marriage, when O.P. No.2 went to her matrimonial home, all the

accused persons including petitioners herein started demanding

10 kathas of land and Rs.5,00,000/- as additional dowry and,

upon non-fulfilment of the said demand, she was subjected to

cruelty and harassment. On the basis of the said allegations, O.P.

No.2 has lodged a complainant case bearing Complaint Case

No. 2526 of 2015 before C.J.M, Muzaffarpur, which got
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53445 of 2018(7) dt.12-05-2026
3/9

transferred for disposal for Learned Trial Court.

5. Upon perusal of the materials available on record,

including the complaint petition, solemn affirmation of the

complainant (O.P. No.2) and the statement of witness recorded

during inquiry, the learned Trial Court, vide Impugned order,

took cognizance of the offences under Section 498A of the

Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act against all the accused persons including the

present petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have

preferred the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application

seeking quashing of the impugned order as well as the entire

criminal proceeding arising therefrom.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner nos. 2 to 6

submits that the present prosecution has been instituted due to

matrimonial discord between the complainant and her husband

and, in course thereof, all the family members of the

matrimonial home have falsely been implicated. Learned

Counsel further submits that the allegations made in the

complaint petition against these petitioners are wholly vague,

bald and omnibus in nature and no specific overt act has been

attributed against any of them. Except making general allegation

regarding demand of dowry and torture, the complaint petition
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53445 of 2018(7) dt.12-05-2026
4/9

does not disclose the manner of occurrence nor any specific role

played individually by these petitioners.

7. Learned counsel of petitioners further submits that

the petitioners are living separately and have no direct concern

with the matrimonial life of the O.P. No.2 and her husband.

Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law,

respectively, petitioner nos. 4 and 5 are brothers-in-law and

petitioner no. 6 is the sister-in-law of the O.P. No.2. Learned

counsel submits that the petitioners have been implicated only

because they are relatives of the husband and continuation of the

criminal proceeding against them would amount to abuse of the

process of the Court.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No.2

opposes the prayer for quashing the cognizance order and

submits that the impugned order of cognizance has been passed

after due consideration of the materials available on record and

the complaint petition discloses prima facie commission of

offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and

Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the

petitioners.

9. Learned counsel of O.P. No.2 submits that there are

specific allegations in the complaint petition regarding demand
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53445 of 2018(7) dt.12-05-2026
5/9

of dowry and torture meted out to the complainant in her

matrimonial home and the truthfulness or otherwise of such

allegations cannot be examined in exercise of inherent

jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. Learned counsel further submits that disputed

questions of fact are involved in the present case, which can

only be adjudicated upon during trial after the parties adduce

evidence before the learned court below. It is thus submitted that

no case for interference is made out and the present application

is fit to be dismissed.

10. Learned APP for the State submits that petitioners

herein are in-laws of O.P. No.2 and at this stage, meticulous

examination of evidence is not permissible and this court may

pass appropriate order in the interest of justice.

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as

well as the learned A.P.P. for the State and upon perusal of the

materials available on record, it appears that the marriage of the

O.P. No.2 was solemnized with Gorakh Mahto on 22.05.2013

according to Hindu rites and customs and sufficient gifts were

given at the time of marriage. It has been alleged that after the

marriage, when the O.P. No.2 went to her matrimonial home, all

the accused persons including petitioner herein started
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53445 of 2018(7) dt.12-05-2026
6/9

demanding 10 kathas of land and Rs.5,00,000/- as additional

dowry and, upon non-fulfilment of the said demand, subjected

her to cruelty and harassment. Learned Trial Court on finding

prima facie case, accodingly took cognizance vide impugned

order.

12. At this juncture, it would be apposite to reproduce

the relevant paragraphs from the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh,

reported in (2023) 16 SCC 666, explaining the scope and

contours of the power of quashing criminal proceedings under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in matrimonial offenses. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53445 of 2018(7) dt.12-05-2026
7/9

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
are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or
vexatious proceedings, the court owes a duty
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53445 of 2018(7) dt.12-05-2026
8/9

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.”

13. In the present case, this Court finds that the

allegations made against petitioner nos. 2 to 6 are general, vague

and omnibus in nature. Though allegations regarding demand of

dowry and cruelty have been levelled, no specific overt act has

been attributed individually to any of these petitioners. The

complaint petition does not disclose the particular manner of

involvement of these petitioners nor does it specify any distinct

role played by them in the alleged occurrence.

14. It is well settled that in matrimonial disputes,

relatives of the husband cannot be subjected to criminal

prosecution merely on the basis of sweeping and omnibus

allegations without there being any specific material disclosing

their active involvement in the alleged occurrence. It is further

well settled that the tendency to implicate all family members of

the husband in matrimonial litigations, in absence of specific

allegations, has repeatedly been deprecated by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court. It is also well settled, in view of the law laid

down by Apex Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan

Lal and Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 that where
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53445 of 2018(7) dt.12-05-2026
9/9

the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide

and the allegations made do not disclose commission of any

offence against the accused persons, the same is fit to be

quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. In the facts of the

present case, this Court finds that continuation of the criminal

proceeding against petitioner nos. 2 to 6 would amount to abuse

of the process of the Court.

15. Accordingly, the impugned order dated

23.01.2016 passed by the learned Trial Court in connection with

Tr. No. 2436 of 2016 arising out of Complaint Case No. 2526

of 2015, qua petitioners nos. 2 to 6, is hereby quashed.

Resultantly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of the

aforesaid case, against these petitioners, stands set aside.

16. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application

is, accordingly, allowed.

17. Interim Order, if any, is vacated.

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

Court concerned forthwith for needful compliance.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.