Patna High Court
Baidyanath Sah and OrsversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
The order taking cognizance against the petitioners is quashed as it amounts to an abuse of the process of the court.
Summary
The petitioners, who are in‑laws of the complainant, sought to quash an order dated 11‑07‑2016 that had taken cognizance of offences under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against them. They argued that the complainant’s statement did not allege any specific role for them and that they were implicated merely because of their familial relationship to the husband, who is the principal accused. The State’s assistant public prosecutor concurred that the complaint failed to disclose any concrete participation by the petitioners. The Patna High Court held that proceeding against the petitioners on such general and omnibus allegations would constitute an abuse of the court’s process. Consequently, the court quashed the order taking cognizance against the petitioners and allowed the petition, while clarifying that the order does not affect the proceedings against the husband.
Issues considered
- Whether cognizance can be taken against persons solely on the basis of being relatives of the accused without specific allegations of participation.
- Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
- Whether the High Court can quash the order under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- criminal law
- Section 498A
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- abuse of process
- quash order
- cognizance
- in‑laws
- Section 482 CrPC
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54684 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-617 Year-2016 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE District-
Vaishali
======================================================
1. Baidyanath Sah, S/o Late Bendi Sah,
2. Ram Ishwar Sah @ Ram Ishwar Kumar, S/o Baidyanath Sah,
3. Amresh Kumar @ Amlesh Kumar, S/o Baidyanath Sah,
4. Priyanka Kumari @ Mahalakshmi Kumari, D/o Baidyanath Sah,
5. Shail Devi @ Sumail Devi, W/o Baidyanath Sah, All are R/o Village- Patauli
, P.S.- Ujiarpur, District- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Rubi Kumari, W/o Dinesh Kumar @ Dinesh Kumar Soni @ Ram Vinay
Sah, R/o village- Palaili, P.S.- Ujiarpur, District- Samastipur, At present D/o
Arjun Sah, R/o Village- Chimnapur, P.S.- Lalganj, District- Vaishali at
Hajipur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 02-02-2026 The instant application has been filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with a prayer to
quash the order dated 11.07.2016 passed by the court of the
learned S.D.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur in C.R. No. 617/2016, T.R.
No. 2534 of 2017, in which cognizance of the offences under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken against the petitioners.
2. Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy, learned counsel appearing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54684 of 2017(5) dt.02-02-2026
2/3
for the petitioners, submits that all the petitioners are in-laws of
O.P. No. 2, and petitioner No. 1 is the father-in-law, petitioner
Nos. 2 and 3 are brothers-in-law, petitioner No. 4 is the
unmarried sister-in-law, and petitioner No. 5 is the mother-in-
law of O.P. No. 2. For securing the appearance of O.P. No. 2,
several attempts were made, and in this regard, notices were
sent to O.P. No. 2 on two occasions, and lastly, publication in
the newspaper was also made, however, she is not taking any
interest. One of the reasons for the same is the second marriage
of O.P. No. 2, and in this regard, a specific statement has been
made in the supplementary affidavit. It is further submitted that
the husband of O.P. No. 2 is facing trial, and against all the
petitioners there is no specific allegation regarding the
commission of the alleged offences for which cognizance has
been taken, and they have been made accused mainly on
account of being relatives of the husband of O.P. No. 2.
3. Though Mr. Surendra Kumar, learned APP for the
State, has opposed this application but fairly accepts that the
complainant, in her solemn affirmation, failed to reveal any
specific role of any of the petitioners in the commission of the
alleged offences.
4. Considering the aforesaid submissions, and mainly
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54684 of 2017(5) dt.02-02-2026
3/3
taking into account the general and omnibus allegations
appearing against the petitioners from the statement (solemn
affirmation) of the complainant, and the main allegations being
against the husband of O.P. No. 2, subjecting the petitioners,
who are in-laws of O.P. No. 2, to criminal proceedings would
amount to a complete abuse of the process of the court. As such,
the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioners,
and the criminal proceedings initiated against them in light of
the said order, are hereby quashed, and the instant petition
stands allowed to the extent of the petitioners only. It is clarified
that the impugned order is not affected by this Court’s order in
respect of the co-accused, who is the husband of O.P. No. 2.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
annu/-
U T
Checking your session…