Patna High Court
RUPA KUMARIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
The FIR is quashed as it contains only general, omnibus allegations against the petitioners, rendering the proceedings an abuse of process.
Summary
Petitioners Rupa Kumari and Shailendra Prasad filed a petition seeking quash of FIR No. 664 of 2021 registered at Agamkuan Police Station for offences under Sections 341, 323, 354A, 379, 498A, 504, 506/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The FIR alleged dowry demands, cruelty and other offences but did not attribute any specific act, date or incident to the petitioners, who are the married nanad and nandoshi of the complainant and reside separately from the matrimonial home. Relying on Supreme Court’s decision in Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh and several precedents dealing with omnibus allegations against in‑laws, the Court held that proceeding against the petitioners would be an abuse of process. Exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC (referred to as Section 528 BNSS), the High Court quashed the FIR insofar as it pertained to both petitioners. Consequently, the petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether an FIR containing vague, omnibus allegations against in‑laws can be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.
- Whether continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
- Whether the petitioners can be discharged from liability under the specific IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act sections alleged in the FIR.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 354A, 379, 498A, 504, 506/34
Subjects
- FIR quash
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 498A IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- omnibus allegations
- abuse of process
- inherent jurisdiction
- marital dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59427 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-664 Year-2021 Thana- AGAMKUAN District- Patna
======================================================
1. RUPA KUMARI Wife of Shailendra Prasad Resident of Housing Colony,
Flat No.- L/G- 12, P.S. - Dhanbad, District - Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
2. Shailendra Prasad Son of Late Kailash Ram Resident of Housing Colony,
Flat No.- L/G- 12, P.S. - Dhanbad, District - Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Archana Kumari Daughter of Ashok Ram Resident of Mohalla - Patel
Nagar, Sri Ram Path, P.S.- Shashtri Nagar, District and Town - Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Dilip Kumar No. 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 22-06-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioners seek quashing of the FIR of Agamkuan
P.S. Case No. 664 of 2021 dated 09.08.2021, registered for
offences under Sections 341, 323, 354A, 379, 498A, 504, 506/34
of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
3. The prosecution case is that the informant married
Kishore Kumar @ Kukku on 30.11.2020 and went to her
matrimonial home on 01.12.2020. Thereafter, she allegedly faced
torture, abuse, assault, and dowry demands of Rs. 10 lakhs and a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59427 of 2021 dt.22-06-2026
2/6
vehicle from her husband’s family. Her mother-in-law allegedly
took her ornaments and later claimed to have passed them on to
Petitioner No. 2. On 31.03.2021, she was sent back to her parental
home. The accused allegedly abused and threatened her, and one
of the accused allegedly misbehaved with her sister.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent persons who have been falsely implicated
in the present case. It is submitted that Petitioner No. 1, Rupa
Kumari, is the married nanad of Opposite Party No. 2 (informant),
and Petitioner No. 2, Shailendra Prasad, is her nandoshi; both
reside separately and have no concern with the matrimonial affairs
of Opposite Party No. 2. A bare perusal of the FIR reveals that the
allegations levelled against the petitioners are vague, omnibus, and
general in nature, and no specific overt act, date, or incident has
been attributed to them. The petitioners neither demanded any
dowry nor subjected the informant to any cruelty and have been
roped in only with an oblique motive to exert pressure upon the
family members of the husband. It is further submitted that the
ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out against the
petitioners. Therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings
against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of
the Court and, accordingly, the impugned FIR and all
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59427 of 2021 dt.22-06-2026
3/6
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be
quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has
vehemently opposed the quashing of the FIR of Agamkuan P.S.
Case No. 664 of 2021 dated 09.08.2021.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhishek vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in [2023 SCC Online SC 1083], and in
a line of decisions preceding it, has quashed proceedings against
in-laws where the allegations in the FIR were general and omnibus
in character. In the present case, the FIR does not attribute any
specific act, date, or incident to either petitioner; the allegations
against them are collective and undifferentiated, bringing this case
squarely within the principle laid down in Abhishek. Moreover, the
dispute, which commenced in 2020, appears to be essentially
between the husband and wife; the petitioners had no independent
concern with it. The relevant paragraphs 13 to 16 of the aforesaid
decision are as under:
“13. 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 alias Sonam v. State of
Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59427 of 2021 dt.22-06-2026
4/6
occasion to deal with a similar situation
where the High Court had refused to quash a
FIR registered for various offences, including
Section 498A 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
498A 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 scars
upon the accused and such an exercise ought
to be discouraged.
14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of
Jharkhand [(2010) 7 SCC 667], this Court
noted that the tendency to implicate the
husband and all his immediate relations is
also not uncommon in complaints filed under
Section 498A IPC. It was observed that the
Courts have to be extremely careful and
cautious in dealing with these complaints and
must take pragmatic realities into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial
cases, as allegations of harassment by
husband’s close relations, who were living in
different cities and never visited or rarely
visited the place where the complainant
resided, would add an entirely different
complexion and such allegations would have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59427 of 2021 dt.22-06-2026
5/6
to be scrutinised with great care and
circumspection.
15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra v.
Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC 184], this Court
observed that the mere mention of statutory
provisions and the language thereof, for
lodging a complaint, is not the ‘be all and end
all’ of the matter, as what is required to be
brought to the notice of the Court is the
particulars of the offence committed by each
and every accused and the role played by
each and every accused in the commission of
that offence. These observations were made in
the context of a matrimonial dispute involving
Section 498A IPC.
16. Of more recent origin is the
decision of this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State
of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023,
decided on 08.08.2023) on the legal
principles applicable apropos Section 482
Cr.P.C. Therein, it was observed that when an
accused comes before the High Court,
invoking either the inherent power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59427 of 2021 dt.22-06-2026
6/6
7. In such view of the matter, this Court has considered
the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. The FIR,
read as a whole, discloses no specific overt act, date, or incident
attributable to either petitioner. Both reside separately from the
matrimonial home and had no independent concern with the
matrimonial affairs of Opposite Party No. 2. The continuation of
criminal proceedings against them, on allegations that are wholly
general and omnibus, would amount to an abuse of the process of
this Court. Accordingly, this Court, exercising its inherent power
under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.),
quashes the FIR of Agamkuan P.S. Case No. 664 of 2021 dated
09.08.2021, pending before the learned Court of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, Patna, insofar as it relates to
Petitioner No. 1, Rupa Kumari (married nanad of Opposite Party
No. 2), and Petitioner No. 2, Shailendra Prasad (nandoshi of
Opposite Party No. 2).
8. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.
(Ansul, J)
abhishekkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 24.06.2026
Transmission Date 24.06.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.