Patna High Court

Md. Akber Hussain and OrsversusState Of Bihar and Anr

Decided: 16 June 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

Holding

The High Court held that the allegations were vague and omnibus, no specific act was attributed to the petitioners, and therefore the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process and were quashed.

Summary

The petitioners, who are in‑laws of the complainant, filed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking quashal of the trial court's order taking cognizance of offences under Section 498A IPC read with Section 34 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant alleged that after her marriage, the petitioners demanded an additional dowry of Rs. 3,00,000 and, on non‑payment, subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, eventually driving her out of the matrimonial home. The petitioners contended that the FIR contained only vague, general and omnibus allegations with no specific overt act attributed to any of them. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that prohibit prosecution of a husband’s relatives on bald allegations and on the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court held that the allegations were insufficient to sustain criminal liability and that proceeding would amount to an abuse of process. Consequently, the order of the trial court was set aside and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.

Issues considered

Whether the allegations against the petitioners constitute specific chargeable offences under Section 498A IPC read with Section 34 and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Whether the High Court can quash the criminal proceedings under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC on the ground of vague, omnibus allegations and mala fide prosecution.
Whether the trial court erred in taking cognizance without specific material linking the petitioners to the alleged offences.

Legislation cited

Criminal Procedure Code — s. 156(3), 482
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 498A

Subjects

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

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53888 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2016 Thana- ROSHANGANJ District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Md. Akber Hussain, son of Sah Mohamad Miyan,
2. Mahatbun Parveen, W/o Md. Akber Hussain,
3. Nikhat Parveen @ Nikhat Perween, D/o Md. Akber Hussain,
4. Md. Tabrez Alam @ Tabrez Alam, S/o Md. Akber Hussain, petitioner No. 1
to 4 Resident of Mohalla- Shamsher Nagar Pandarpala, P.S.- Bhuli, District-
Dhanbad Jharkhand.
5. Azmat Hussain, Son of Sah Mohamad Miya,
6. Salamat Hussain, Son of Sah Mohamad Miya, petitioner no. 5 and 6 are
resident of Village- Kolhubar, P.S.- Dumariya, District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ruhi Praveen, W/o Pervez Alam, D/o Md. Kamruddin Ansari, Resident of
Village- Bhaluhar, P.S.- Banke Bazar, District- Gaya.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, A.P.P
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER

7 16-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as

learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present application has been filed for quashing

of the order dated 24.08.2016 (hereinafter referred to as

‘impugned order’) passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sherghati

(Gaya) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) in connection

with G.R. No. 640 of 2016 arising out of Raushanganj (Banke

Bazar) P.S. Case No. 51 of 2016, whereby cognizance has been

taken for the offences punishable under Section 498A read with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53888 of 2018(7) dt.16-06-2026
2/9

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioners herein

and also against the husband of the O.P. No.2.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage

of O.P. No.2 (informant) was solemnized with the son of

petitioner nos. 1 and 2 on 29.04.2015 according to Muslim rites

and customs. It is alleged that after marriage, the accused

persons expressed dissatisfaction with the articles given in

marriage and demanded a further sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as

dowry. Upon failure to fulfill the said demand, the informant

(O.P. No.2) was allegedly subjected to physical and mental

cruelty and was ultimately driven out from her matrimonial

house after snatching her ornaments. On the basis of the said

allegations, O.P. No.2 instituted complaint case bearing

Complaint Case No. 123 of 2016 before the Court of the learned

A.C.J.M., Sherghati, Gaya, which was subsequently sent for

investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and, accordingly, was

registered as F.I.R. bearing Raushanganj (Banke Bazar) P.S.

Case No. 51 of 2016 on 22.04.2016. After completion of

investigation, charge-sheet was submitted before the learned

Trial Court on 31.07.2016.

4. On the basis of the F.I.R., charge-sheet and the

materials available on records, the learned Trial Court, found
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53888 of 2018(7) dt.16-06-2026
3/9

prima facie case and accordingly, took cognizance of offences

punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act against the petitioners and the other accused

persons. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners herein have preferred

the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application seeking

quashing of the impugned order as well as the entire criminal

proceeding arising therefrom.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the

present case merely on account of their relationship with the

husband of O.P. No.2. Learned counsel of petitioners further

submits that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are absolutely

vague, general and omnibus in nature and no specific overt act

has been attributed against petitioners herein. Learned counsel

further submits that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are the father-in-law

and mother-in-law of the informant, respectively, petitioner no. 3

is unmarried nanad, petitioner no. 4 is dewar and petitioner nos.

5 and 6 are gotia i.e., brothers of petitioner no.1, having no

concern whatsoever with the matrimonial life of the informant

and her husband. He further submits that except making bald

allegations that the in-laws demanded dowry and subjected O.P.

No.2 to cruelty, no specific date, time, place or manner of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53888 of 2018(7) dt.16-06-2026
4/9

occurrence has been disclosed in the entire prosecution case.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the learned

Trial Court, without applying judicial mind to the materials

available on record, mechanically took cognizance against the

petitioners despite absence of any specific allegation constituting

the ingredients of offences under Section 498A read with Section

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

Prohibition Act. He further submits that continuation of the

criminal proceeding against the petitioners would amount to

abuse of the process of the Court and the entire criminal

prosecution has been maliciously instituted only to harass the

petitioners. It is thus submitted that the entire criminal

proceeding against the petitioners is fit to be quashed.

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

opposes the present application and submits that the allegations

made in the F.I.R. as well as the materials collected during

investigation clearly disclose commission of cognizable offences

under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against

the petitioners and the learned Trial Court has rightly taken

cognizance of the alleged offences. Learned counsel for the O.P.

No.2, thus, submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly

taken cognizance against the petitioners warranting no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53888 of 2018(7) dt.16-06-2026
5/9

interference by this Court in the impugned order and the present

application being devoid of merit is fit to be dismissed.

8. Learned A.P.P. 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.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as well

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

available on record, it appears that the present case arises out of

Raushanganj (Banke Bazar) P.S. Case No. 51 of 2016 instituted

on the basis of Complaint Case No. 123 of 2016 filed by O.P.

No.2 alleging demand of additional dowry and subjecting her to

physical and mental cruelty by her husband and petitioners

herein. The allegations, as made in the complaint petition and the

F.I.R., are that after solemnization of marriage, the accused

persons expressed dissatisfaction with the articles given in

marriage and demanded a further sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as dowry

and upon failure to fulfill the said demand, O.P. No.2 was

allegedly subjected to torture and was ultimately driven out from

her matrimonial home after snatching her ornaments.

10. 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,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53888 of 2018(7) dt.16-06-2026
6/9

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-A IPC. 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53888 of 2018(7) dt.16-06-2026
7/9

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
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.”
11. In the present case, this Court finds that the

allegations levelled against the present petitioners are general

and omnibus in nature. The prosecution case mainly discloses

that after marriage, dissatisfaction was expressed regarding the

articles given in marriage and an additional demand of Rs.

3,00,000/- was allegedly made, followed by alleged physical and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53888 of 2018(7) dt.16-06-2026
8/9

mental harassment of the informant. However, except making

sweeping allegations against all the in-laws, no specific overt act

has been attributed to the present petitioners individually nor has

any distinct role been assigned to them in the alleged occurrence.

12. It is well settled that in matrimonial disputes,

relatives of the husband cannot be compelled to face criminal

prosecution merely on the basis of bald, vague and omnibus

allegations without there being any specific material disclosing

their active involvement in the alleged offence. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court has consistently observed that there is an

increasing tendency to implicate all family members of the

husband in matrimonial litigations and that such criminal

proceedings deserve interference where no specific allegations

are made against the accused persons. It is further well settled, in

view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of

Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors., reported in 1992

Supp (1) SCC 335 that where the allegations made in the F.I.R.,

even if taken at their face value, do not disclose commission of

any offence or where the criminal proceeding appears to be

manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted,

the same is liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent

jurisdiction. In the facts of the present case, this Court finds that

the allegations made against the petitioners are vague and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53888 of 2018(7) dt.16-06-2026
9/9

general in nature and continuation of the criminal proceeding

against them would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.08.2016

passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sherghati (Gaya) in connection

with G.R. No. 640 of 2016 arising out of Raushanganj (Banke

Bazar) P.S. Case No. 51 of 2016, qua the present petitioners, is

hereby set aside. Resultantly, the entire criminal proceeding

arising out of the aforesaid case, against the petitioners herein,

stands quashed.

14. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application

is, accordingly, allowed.

15. 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.