Patna High Court
RAM PRASAD RAUNAKversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
The High Court held that the complaint was a general omnibus allegation without specific particulars against the petitioners and therefore quashed the order taking cognizance of the case.
Summary
The petitioners, members of the Raunak family, filed an application to quash the order dated 11-10-2022 that had taken cognizance of a complaint against them for offences under IPC sections 323, 498A, 506 and a provision of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They contended that the allegations were vague, general and primarily directed at the husband, lacking specific particulars against the other family members. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that warn against omnibus accusations in matrimonial disputes, the court examined whether the complaint was frivolous or vexatious under the inherent powers of Section 482 CrPC. The High Court held that the complaint did not disclose concrete allegations against the petitioners and therefore constituted an abuse of process. Consequently, the application was allowed and the earlier order was quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether the complaint against the petitioners constitutes a general omnibus allegation lacking specific particulars required under Sections 323, 498A, 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the High Court can invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings that are frivolous, vexatious or filed with an ulterior motive.
- Whether the presence of only a husband‑centric allegation justifies extending liability to his relatives in a matrimonial dispute.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A, 506
Subjects
- quash
- Section 498A
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- omnibus allegation
- Section 482 CrPC
- matrimonial dispute
- false implication
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75445 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1170 Year-2022 Thana- BHOJPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Bhojpur
======================================================
1. RAM PRASAD RAUNAK SON OF RAM AVTAR RAUNAK RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE AND POST - SINGHAUL, POLICE STATION -
BELAGANJ, DISTRICT - GAYA
2. PARVATI DEVI WIFE OF RAM PRASAD RAUNAK RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE AND POST - SINGHAUL, POLICE STATION - BELAGANJ,
DISTRICT - GAYA
3. RUPESH RAUNAK @ SIYAWAR PRASAD SON OF RAM PRASAD
RAUNAK RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST - SINGHAUL, POLICE
STATION - BELAGANJ, DISTRICT - GAYA
4. NAVIN RAUNAK @ NAVIN KUMAR SON OF RAM PRASAD
RAUNAK RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST - SINGHAUL, POLICE
STATION - BELAGANJ, DISTRICT - GAYA
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. RITA KUMARI WIFE OF DIPESH RAUNAK, DAUGHTER OF SHYAM
PRASAD SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST - SINGHAUL,
POLICE STATION - BELAGANJ AND DISTRICT - GAYA. AT PRESENT
C/O. MUNNA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - SHIVGANJ TOLA,
POST - DAWAN, POLICE STATION - BIHIYA AND BHOJPUR
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Aryan Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Awadhesh Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
3 30-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing
of the order dated 11-10-2022 passed in Complaint Case No.
1170© of 2022 whereby and whereunder, the learned court
below took cognizance against the petitioners for the offence
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75445 of 2023(3) dt.30-03-2026
2/6
punishable under sections 323, 498(A) and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The petitioners are in laws. The allegation against
them is general and omnibus and the main thrust of allegation
seems to be against the husband.
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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75445 of 2023(3) dt.30-03-2026
3/6
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75445 of 2023(3) dt.30-03-2026
4/6
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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75445 of 2023(3) dt.30-03-2026
5/6
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”.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
the present application with respect to the petitioners is allowed
and the order dated 11-10-2022 passed by Nandini Suman,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75445 of 2023(3) dt.30-03-2026
6/6
Court Room No. 4, learned Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class,
Bhojpur in Complaint Case No. 1170© of 2022 is hereby
quashed.
(Ansul, J)
A.K.V.//-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.