Patna High Court
SARITA SINGH @ SARITA DEVIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
The High Court quashed the order taking cognizance against the petitioners as the FIR contained only general omnibus allegations and no specific case against them, rendering the proceedings frivolous.
Summary
The petitioners, who are the mother‑in‑law and father‑in‑law of the complainant, filed an application to quash the order dated 03‑11‑2022 of the Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate that took cognizance of offences under IPC sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 498A, 34 and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3 and 4. The petitioners contended that the FIR contained only vague, omnibus allegations arising from a marital dispute and that no specific acts were alleged against them, with no evidence recorded to date. The Court examined precedents on misuse of Section 498A and the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to intervene in frivolous or vexatious proceedings. Relying on judgments such as Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, and Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., the Court held that the proceedings against the petitioners were unfounded. Consequently, the order taking cognizance against the petitioners was quashed and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- The propriety of exercising the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the order taking cognizance of offences against the petitioners.
- Whether the FIR and complaint disclose specific allegations sufficient to sustain prosecution of the petitioners under the listed IPC and Dowry Act provisions.
- Whether the criminal proceedings constitute a frivolous or vexatious exercise of the process of law.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- Section 498A
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- Inherent jurisdiction
- Section 482 CrPC
- Quash order
- Matrimonial dispute
- Omnibus allegation
- Frivolous prosecution
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73692 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2022 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Aurangabad
======================================================
1. SARITA SINGH @ SARITA DEVI W/o Jai Prakash Singh R/o Village-
Kala Pahad, P.S.- Tandwa, Distt- Aurangabad.
2. JAI PRAKASH SINGH S/o Late Ram Lakhan Singh R/o Village- Kala
Pahad, P.S.- Tandwa, Distt- Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. KHUSHBU KUMARI W/o Mohit Kumar R/o Village- Kala Pahad, P.S.-
Tandwa, Distt- Aurangabad.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Saket Tiwary
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Binod Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
4 30-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. The present application has been filed to quash the
order dated 03-11-2022 passed by the learned learned Sub
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in Aurangabad
Mahila P.S. Case No. 02 of 2022 whereby and whereunder, the
learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad has
been pleased to take cognizance for the offence punishable
under Sections-341/323/504/506/498A/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections-3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73692 of 2022(4) dt.30-03-2026
2/6
that the case was filed against the order taking cognizance but
presently, charges have been framed in this case. Counsel for the
opposite party No. 2 informs the court that though charges have
been framed in the year, 2025 but till date, no evidence has been
recorded. He relied upon the judgment of Anand Kumar
Mohatta to assert that the court can interfere at any stage of the
case in exercise of jurisdiction under Section-482. The
petitioners are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the
complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon
the judgment of Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
reported in [2023 SCC Online SC 1083). He has referred
paragraph Nos. 13, 14 and 15 of the said judgment which are as
follows:
“(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
occasion to deal with a similar situation
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73692 of 2022(4) dt.30-03-2026
3/6
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73692 of 2022(4) dt.30-03-2026
4/6
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73692 of 2022(4) dt.30-03-2026
5/6
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.73692 of 2022(4) dt.30-03-2026
6/6
5. From bare perusal of the FIR, it transpires that the
dispute is between husband and wife. The son of the petitioners
had gone to attend official assignment at Germany for a period
of one year but due to the eccentric behaviour of the informant,
he has to return back to India. It also appears that except general
and omnibus allegation, there is nothing against the petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
as also taking into consideration the judgment referred above, I
quash the order dated 03-11-2022 passed by the learned Sub
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in Aurangabad
Mahila P.S. Case No. 02 of 2022 as against the petitioners only.
7. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
(Ansul, J)
A.K.V.//-
U T
Checking your session…