Patna High Court
Puniyanand Jha and OrsversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
In the absence of specific allegations against the petitioners, the prosecution cannot proceed and the petitioners are discharged.
Summary
The petitioners, who are relatives of the complainant (Radha Rani), were charged under IPC sections 494, 498A and 34, and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3 and 4 for alleged cruelty and dowry harassment. The complainant’s FIR contained only vague, general allegations without specifying any particular act by the petitioners. The petitioners argued that such omnibus allegations should not sustain prosecution against in‑laws, relying on Supreme Court precedent (Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar). The State contended that the trial court could determine the role of the petitioners from evidence. The High Court held that the lack of specific allegations against each petitioner made the prosecution untenable and would amount to harassment. Consequently, the Court set aside the earlier orders and discharged the petitioners of all charges.
Issues considered
- Whether general and omnibus allegations in an FIR are sufficient to sustain prosecution of in‑laws under IPC 498A, 494 and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the petitioners should be discharged in the absence of specific allegations linking them to the alleged cruelty.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 494, 498A
Subjects
- Criminal Procedure
- Section 498A
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- General allegations
- Omnibus allegations
- Discharge
- In‑laws
- Matrimonial dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54724 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-443 Year-2012 Thana- BAHERA District- Darbhanga
======================================================
1. Puniyanand Jha, son of Late Upendra Jha,
2. Archana Jha wife of Puniyanand Jha,
3. Chandra Mohan Jha, son of Puniyanand Jha,
4. Richa Rani wife of Chandra Mohan Jha, All are resident of Village-
Chaugama, P.S.- Bahera, District- Darbhanga.
5. Laxmi Devi, daughter of Ramesh Choudhary, resident of Village- Dumari,
P.S.- Biroul, District- Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Radha Rani wife of Krishna Mohan Jha (daughter of Phulchandra Rai),
resident of Village- Chaugama, P.S.- Bahera, District- Darbhanga. At
present, resident of Village- Basuham, P.S. Bahera, District- Darbhanga.
3. Pankaj Kumar Choudhary @ Pankaj Choudhary, S/O Udai Chandra
Choudhary, Village+P.O.-Moro, PS Moro, District Darbhanga
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Meenakshi Priya, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
12 16-02-2026 I.A. No. 1417 of 2017
By way of this interlocutory application, the
petitioners have prayed for the addition of an additional relief
for setting aside the orders dated 13.06.2016, 06.09.2016 and
24.01.2017 passed in Cr. Revision Nos. 234/2016, 345/2016 and
25/2017 respectively by the court of learned District & Sessions
Judge, Darbhanga, whereby the order dated 24.02.2016 passed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54724 of 2015(12) dt.16-02-2026
2/7
in Gr. No. 450/2012 and Tr. No. 298/2016 (arising out of Bahera
P.S. Case No. 443/2012) by the court of learned S.D.J.M.,
Benipur, rejecting the petitioners’ prayer for discharge, was
affirmed.
2. Heard Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. After having heard both the sides, this Court allows
this interlocutory application and the petitioners’ prayer to add
the aforesaid relief in the main petition. Accordingly, the instant
interlocutory application (I.A. No. 1417 of 2017) stands
disposed of.
Cr. Misc. No. 54724 of 2015
4. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has
been preferred by the petitioners for setting aside the order dated
09.04.2013 passed by the court of learned A.C.J.M., Benipur
(Darbhanga) in connection with Bahera P.S. Case No. 443/2012
(G.R. NO. 450/2012) whereby the cognizance of the offences
under sections 494 and 498A read with section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’) and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act has been taken against the petitioners; and the
petitioners have also prayed for discharge from the charges
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54724 of 2015(12) dt.16-02-2026
3/7
framed upon them by way of above-mentioned interlocutory
application (I.A. No. 1417 of 2017).
5. Learned APP for the State submits that in the light
of the direction given by this Court on 07.01.2026, the notice
was issued upon the O.P. No. 2 through the SHO concerned,
however, the details of the address of the O.P. No. 2 could not
have been found, due to which she could not be informed and
the matter may be heard on merit.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
among the petitioners, petitioner No. 1 is the father-in-law of the
informant (O.P. No. 2), petitioner No. 2 is the mother-in-law of
the O.P. No. 2, petitioner No. 3 is the brother-in-law of the O.P.
No. 2, petitioner No. 4 is the sister-in-law of the O.P. No. 2 and
the petitioner No. 5 has no any kind of relationship with the O.P.
No. 2 and accordingly, she is not a family member of either of
the parties.
6.1. It is further submitted that in between the O.P.
No. 2 and her husband, earlier two matrimonial suits for divorce
had been filed by the husband of O.P. No. 2, which were later
withdrawn by him, mainly on the ground of a compromise.
Thereafter, the relation between them again became strained,
and the husband again filed a third matrimonial suit, which is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54724 of 2015(12) dt.16-02-2026
4/7
still pending and running at the stage of evidence. In the FIR
lodged by the O.P. No. 2, the alleged occurrence of physical and
mental torture to O.P. No. 2 by the accused persons, including
the petitioners, started just after few months of her marriage and
remained continued till the filing of the undated typed written
application to the police. From the perusal of the FIR, which is
the basis of the prosecution case, it appears that the alleged
cruelty was committed for several years with the O.P. No. 2,
however, no any specific role of any of the petitioners was
revealed by the O.P. No. 2, and even no any particular date
showing the specific role or conduct of the petitioners regarding
their participation in the commission of the alleged cruelty was
also disclosed. Therefore, the entire allegations concerning to
the period from 2007 to 2012, as revealed by O.P. No. 2, against
the petitioners are entirely general and omnibus in nature. It is a
settled position of law that in such type of cases involving
general and omnibus allegations, the in-laws should not be
harassed in a criminal proceeding. In support of this submission,
learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @
Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, reported in
(2022) AIR (SC) 820, and the relevant paragraph Nos. 18 and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54724 of 2015(12) dt.16-02-2026
5/7
19, upon which learned counsel has placed reliance, are
reproduced as under:
“18. The above-mentioned decisions
clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous
instances expressed concern over the misuse of
Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of
implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial
disputes, without analysing the long-term
ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as
the accused. It is further manifest from the said
judgments that false implication by way of general
omnibus allegations made in the course of
matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in
misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by
way of its judgments has warned the courts from
proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the
husband when no prima facie case is made out
against them.
19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon
a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it
is revealed that general allegations are levelled
against the appellants. The complainant alleged that
“all accused harassed her mentally and threatened
her of terminating her pregnancy”. Furthermore, no
specific and distinct allegations have been made
against either of the appellants herein i.e. none of the
appellants have been attributed any specific role in
furtherance of the general allegations made against
them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one
fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in
furtherance of the offence. The allegations are,
therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be
said to have been made out on account of small
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54724 of 2015(12) dt.16-02-2026
6/7
skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he
has not appealed against the order of the High Court,
we have not examined the veracity of allegations
made against him. However, as far as the appellants
are concerned, the allegations made against them
being general and omnibus, do not warrant
prosecution.”
7. On the other hand, learned APP for the State
submits that though the FIR does not disclose any specific role
of any of the petitioners in the alleged cruelty but the allegations
of the O.P. No. 2 is the subject matter of trial and a proper
analysis can only be made after taking the evidences and one
thing is quite clear that the O.P. No. 2 started to lead conjugal
relationship on two occasions, which shows her bona fide
intention and she was subjected to cruelty by her husband and
in-laws.
8. After having heard both the sides and perused the
relevant materials including the orders impugned. This Court
finds that in the FIR lodged by the O.P. No. 2, any specific role
of any of the petitioners in committing the cruel behaviour with
the O.P. No. 2 has not been disclosed despite the said behaviour
having started just few months after the marriage of the O.P. No.
2 and remained continued till the month of January, 2012, and
such vagueness on the part of the O.P. No. 2 against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54724 of 2015(12) dt.16-02-2026
7/7
petitioners in revealing their role in the commission of the
alleged cruelty does not inspire the confidence of this Court to
subject the petitioners to the trial for the alleged offences and in
the absence of any specific role against any of the petitioners,
the trial of the petitioners for the alleged offences would be
complete harassment to them. Accordingly, I find force in the
prayer made by the petitioners. The learned trial court as well as
the revisional court did not appreciate the petitioners’ ground in
right perspective, so, the orders which have been impugned in
the main petition as well as in the interlocutory application (I.A.
No. 1417 of 2014) including the orders impugned taking
cognizance and rejecting the petitioners’ prayer for discharge are
hereby set aside and the petitioners are discharged from all the
allegations concerned to the alleged offences and they are
exonerated from all the criminal liabilities having arisen against
them from the impugned orders. Accordingly, the instant
criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
annu/-
AFR
U T
Checking your session…