Patna High Court
Sunil Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court held that the FIR contains prima facie allegations of dowry harassment and related offences, so the applications to quash the FIR are premature; it dismissed the applications against certain petitioners and allowed the quash applications of others where no prima facie case was evident.
Summary
The informant Megha Singh alleged that after her marriage in 2017 she was subjected to dowry harassment, physical assault, and sexual abuse by her husband’s relatives, leading to the registration of an FIR under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused relatives filed applications under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quash of the FIR, claiming they were distant relatives and the allegations were false and frivolous. The High Court examined whether the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and held that prima‑facie allegations of dowry harassment and related offences were made out, and that the court could not pre‑empt the police investigation. Consequently, the applications to quash the FIR were dismissed for petitioners Sunil Kumar Singh, Shiven Singh, Jyotsna Singh, Sweta Singh (the sister‑in‑law), and Aman Singh, while the applications of Manisha Singh, Krishna Kumar Singh and Sweta Singh (the mother‑in‑law) were allowed. The Court emphasized that quashing of FIRs is an exceptional remedy and the investigation must proceed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR discloses a cognizable offence warranting investigation, thereby precluding its quash under Section 482 CrPC.
- Whether the petitioners’ claim of being distant relatives and having no involvement can justify dismissal of the FIR.
- Whether the court may examine the merits or veracity of the allegations in the FIR at the interlocutory stage.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 74, 79, 85
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 173, 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- quash of FIR
- Section 482 CrPC
- cognizable offence
- investigation
- high court
- domestic violence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75805 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-184 Year-2024 Thana- NAYAGAON District- Saran
======================================================
1. Sunil Kumar Singh S/o Late Ram Vilas Singh R/o House No. 06, Mai Girls
Hostel, Sardar Patel Path, Boring Road, P.s- Sri Krishnapuri, Distt - Patna
2. Manisha Singh W/o Sunil Kumar Singh R/o House No. 06, Mai Girls
Hostel, Sardar Patel Path, Boring Road, P.s- Sri Krishnapuri, Distt - Patna
3. Shiven Singh S/o Sunil Kumar Singh R/o House No. 06, Mai Girls Hostel,
Sardar Patel Path, Boring Road, P.s- Sri Krishnapuri, Distt - Patna
4. Krishna Kumar Singh S/o Late Ram Vilas Singh R/o House No. 06, Mai
Girls Hostel, Sardar Patel Path, Boring Road, P.s- Sri Krishnapuri, Distt -
Patna
5. Sweta Singh W/o Krishna Kumar Singh R/o House No. 06, Mai Girls
Hostel, Sardar Patel Path, Boring Road, P.s- Sri Krishnapuri, Distt - Patna
6. Jyotsna Singh @ Jyotsna W/o Rahul Raj R/o Rawati, Shukla Colony, Hinoo,
Doranda, Distt. - Ranchi (Jharkhand)
7. Sweta singh W/o Ravish Kumar Singh R/o Bermo Seem, Near Durga
Mandap, P.S. - Bermo, Dist.- Bokaro (Jharkhand)
8. Aman Singh @ Aman Kumar Singh S/o Manoj Kumar Singh R/o Sri Sai
Residency, Block A, B202, Chitragupt Nagar, Bariatu, Distt. - Ranchi,
Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Megha Singh W/o Ankit Kumar Singh, D/o Rajesh Singh R/o vill - Dumri
Bujurg, P.S. - Nayagaon, Distt. - Saran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 75931 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-184 Year-2024 Thana- NAYAGAON District- Saran
======================================================
1. Anil Kumar Singh S/o Late Ram Vilas singh R/o 1919C, Bermo Seem, P.S. -
Bermo, Distt.- Bokaro (Jharkhand)
2. Punam Singh W/o Anil Kumar Singh R/o 1919C, Bermo Seem, P.S. -
Bermo, Distt.- Bokaro (Jharkhand)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Megha Singh W/o Ankit Kumar Singh, D/o Rajesh Singh R/o vill- Dumri
Bujurg, P.S. - Nayagaon, Distt.- Saran
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75805 of 2024 dt.27-02-2026
2/15
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 75805 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Kalyan Shankar, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ashish Giri, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rajat Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
Ms. Deepika Sharma, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 75931 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Radha Mohan Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Kalyan Shankar, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ashish Giri, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rajat Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
Ms. Deepika Sharma, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : ...-02-2026
Heard Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. Ashish Giri, learned senior counsel for the O.P.
No. 2 and Mr. Kalyan Shankar, learned APP for the State.
2. These applications have been preferred for quashing
of the FIR being Nayagaon P.S. Case No. 184 of 2024 registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 74, 85,
352, 351(2), 79 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The facts giving rise to the present case is to the effect
that the informant namely Megha Singh/O.P. No. 2, had given
written statement that her marriage was solemnized with Ankit
Singh in 2017. After few days, the petitioner families started
torturing her for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. The
informant further alleges that petitioner, Sweta Singh 7 in the state
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75805 of 2024 dt.27-02-2026
3/15
of intoxication tried to give her a knife blow and she along with
her mother Punam Singh was harrasing her mentally. It is further
alleged by the informant that her father in law in the state of
intoxication treid to abuse her sexually with the reason that there
was non fulfillment of dowry demand. After the birth of
informant’s daughter the petitioners tried to take her away and
coerced her to give that child for Adoption. It is further alleged by
the informant that petitioner no 3 also tried to sexually abuse her.
The informant left her matrimonial home along with her daughter.
On the basis of written application FIR was registered against the
petitioners. Hence the present applications.
4. The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are quite innocent and have falsely been implicated
in this case. The allegations are false, frivolous, fabricated and
concocted and having no essence of truth. That in Cr. Misc. No.
75805 of 2024, Petitioner No. 1 and 4 are the Cousin Father-in-
law, Petitioner No. 2 and 5 is the Cousin Mother-in-law, Petitioner
No. 3 is the cousin Brother-in-law, Petitioner No. 6 and 7 are
married sister-in-law whereas Petitioner No. 8 is the nephew of
Petitioner No. 2 who is not in any way directly related to Husband
of O.P. No. 2.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75805 of 2024 dt.27-02-2026
4/15
5. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
other than petitioner nos. 6 and 7 of Cr. Misc. No. 75805 of 2024,
all the other petitioners are distant relatives and live their life
separately. It is further submitted that petitioner no 6 and 7 are
married sister in laws and have nothing to do with the family
affairs of the informant. It is next submitted that Petitioner no 8 is
the nephew of petitioner no 2 who in no way connected with the
husband of O.P. No. 2.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the
O.P. No. 2 from the very solemnization of marriage was never
found interested in starting her conjugal relations with her husband
and was constantly committing cruelty through her unprecedented,
indecent and violent behavior towards him and other family
members. She was prejudiced with the sense of abhorrence
towards her entire matrimonial relations. It is next submitted that
Petitioners, despite the tormenting and cruel behavior of O.P. No.
2, remained silent in the hope that with time she would adjust to
her new family and understand her marital responsibilities. It has
next been submitted that the petitioners made several efforts to
restore harmony in the strained relationship, but all attempts failed
due to her continued misconduct towards her husband and family
members. It is next submitted that within a short period at her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75805 of 2024 dt.27-02-2026
5/15
matrimonial home, she misbehaved with her in-laws and sister-in-
law and, on trivial issues, threatened them with serious
consequences.
7. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioners had never ever demanded any amount of dowry
from the O.P. No. 2 or her father as dowry and such allegations
were made just to aggravate the facts and circumstances of the
case. It is further submitted that the Husband of O.P. No. 2 is still
ready to keep his wife with full honor and dignity. That the learned
Counsel has referred to the Judgment rendered in State of
Haryana & Ors. V. Bhajan Lal & Ors reported in 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335, and Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors v. State of
Telangana & Ors. reported in (2025) 3 SCC 735 in support of his
arguments.
8. The Learned Senior counsel for the O.P. No. 2
submitted that the statements made in the petition are distorted and
misleading. The FIR in question was filed based on grave and
continuous acts of cruelty, harassment for dowry, physical assault,
and sexual abuse inflicted upon the O.P. No. 2 by the petitioner
and his family members. The O.P. No. 2 was reduced to a position
of a helpless victim, compelled to endure severe abuse merely for
not being able to fulfill illegal dowry demands. It has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75805 of 2024 dt.27-02-2026
6/15
submitted that the FIR has been lodged after sustained and
unbearable mental and physical harassment over several years, and
thus, cannot be labeled as frivolous or false by any stretch of
imagination.
9. The Learned Senior counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has
submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed in which it has
specifically been denied about false implication. It has next been
submitted that petitioners frequently visited the matrimonial home
and actively intervened in the marital life of the Informant. It is
further submitted that the petitioner’s participated in acts of
harassment, intimidation, humiliation and cruelty, and their
involvement was neither remote nor incidental. The allegation that
they had not spent a single day with the Opposite Party No. 2 after
the solemnization of marriage is incorrect and deliberately made to
mislead this Hon'ble Court. The question of physical cohabitation
is immaterial when the FIR discloses repeated acts committed
during their visits and in furtherance of common intention. Hence,
the plea of distant relationship and separate living arrangement is a
self-serving defence, which cannot be adjudicated at this stage and
deserves outright rejection.
10. The Learned Senior counsel for the Opposite Party
No. 2 submitted that the allegations regarding any alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75805 of 2024 dt.27-02-2026
7/15
extramarital affair of the Opposite Party No. 2 are wholly false,
malicious and without any factual foundation. There is not a single
piece of material to substantiate such defamatory assertions. The
mobile number used by the Opposite Party No. 2 was in fact
registered in the name of the husband's brother-in- law. It has been
asserted that the Opposite Party No. 2 came to know about
tampering with her communication only when the services were
abruptly suspended and an eSIM was issued without her
knowledge. Upon making inquiries, it was revealed that her Whats
App account was being clandestinely accessed and monitored at
the instance of the petitioner, clearly indicating invasion of privacy
and ulterior motive. Alarmed by this unauthorized interference, the
Opposite Party No. 2 immediately approached the local Police
Station and submitted a written complaint, upon which the police
assured appropriate action. It has further been submitted that the
FIR already contains detailed and specific allegations narrating the
incidents of cruelty, harassment and intimidation suffered by the
Opposite Party No. 2. The contents of the FIR clearly disclose
cognizable offences and require no further elaboration at this
stage. The truthfulness, sufficiency and evidentiary value of the
allegations are matters to be examined during investigation and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75805 of 2024 dt.27-02-2026
8/15
trial. Premature interference by this Hon'ble Court would amount
to stifling a legitimate prosecution at the threshold.
11. The Learned Senior counsel for the Opposite Party
Number 2 submits that the assertions made by the petitioners
denying involvement are self-serving and motivated solely to
evade the due process of law. The allegations levelled against the
petitioner and his family members are grave, specific and
substantiated by the factual narrative in the FIR. The same cannot
be dismissed merely on the basis of bald denials.
12. It has thus been submitted that the petitioners must
face investigation and trial so that the veracity of the allegations
may be judicially determined. It is next submitted that the so-
called willingness of the petitioners to keep the Opposite Party No.
2 with honour and dignity is nothing but an eye wash projected for
securing sympathy before this Hon'ble Court. In reality, when the
petitioners and other family members visited the village of the
Opposite Party No. 2, they publicly humiliated her by
assassinating her character before villagers and refused to engage
in any dignified discussion despite repeated requests by her father.
They even issued threats of dire consequences.
13. It is next submitted that the husband of the informant
maliciously instituted Complaint Case No. 244 of 2025 dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75805 of 2024 dt.27-02-2026
9/15
06.01.2025 under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code
against the brother of the Opposite Party No. 2, and also instigated
registration of SC/ST P.S. Case No. 09/2025 dated 26.01.2025
through the father of a maid working in their house against the
family members of the Opposite Party No. 2. Such conduct clearly
reflects vindictiveness, mala fide intention and an attempt to
pressurize and intimidate the Opposite Party No. 2 and her family
members after registration of the present FIR.
14. The learned senior counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has
thus submitted that the petitioners having challenged the entire
FIR is misconceived because it is a case where allegations have
been levelled against the accused persons of abuse and torture and
therefore, it is only after the investigation that the true facts would
come out and till then no interference is warranted.
15. In support of his arguments, learned Senior Counsel
has relied on various judicial pronouncements which are Muskan
v. Ishaan Khan(Sataniya) and Ors. reported in 2025 SCC Online
SC 2355, Umesh Prasad Gupta & Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr.
reported in 2024 SCC Online Pat 3304, Jyoti v. State of Bihar &
Anr. reported in 2024 SCC Online Pat 3468.
16. Learned APP for the state has vehemently opposed
the prayer for quashing of the FIR. The learned APP submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75805 of 2024 dt.27-02-2026
10/15
the informant was subject to cruelty and the petitioners are in-laws
and they have made demand of dowry and harassed the victim.
17. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the respective pleadings and affidavits, it is evident
that the informant has named 11 accused in the present case and
almost all the family members have been implicated with
allegations of being in connivance in either abusing, demanding
dowry or inflicting torture. This Court has taken note that in Cr.
Misc. No. 75805 of 2024, the petitioners no. 1 and 4 are the cousin
father-in-law, while petitioners no. 2 and 5 are the cousin mother-
in-law, petitioner no. 3 is the cousin brother-in-law, petitioners no.
6 and 7 are the married sisters-in-law whereas petitioner no. 8 is
the nephew of petitioner no. 2.
18. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners had
impressed upon this Court that barring petitioners no. 6 and 7 rest
of the petitioners are distant relatives of O.P. No. 2 and they have
been living their lives separately and had no say in the internal
marital affairs of O.P. No. 2, however from the perusal of the
written report it would be evident that the informant has alleged
specifically with regard to the father-in-law and mother-in-law
(petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 75931 of 2024) along with petitioner
no. 4 and petitioner no. 5 being involved in abuse of not only the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75805 of 2024 dt.27-02-2026
11/15
O.P. No. 2 but to even the family members of the O.P. No. 2 with
specific date.
19. While there is specific allegation against petitioner
no. 3 of inappropriate conduct towards the O.P. No. 2 and in which
the husband of O.P. No. 2 had in fact blamed her and not the
petitioner no. 3 who happens to be the cousin of the husband of the
informant. The O.P. No. 2 has also specifically named her
husband, father-in-law, cousin father-in-law and the cousin of her
husband to have gone to her parents’ house on specific date and
forcibly tried to take away the daughter of O.P. No. 2.
20. From the above, it seems that there are allegations
levelled against the named accused persons however from the
perusal of the same it is evident that as far as petitioners Krishna
Kumar Singh, Manisha Singh and Sweta Singh (petitioner no. 5)
are concerned there is very vague and omnibus nature of
allegations levelled against them without any specificity.
21. It is a settled law now as per the judgment rendered
in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal reported in
1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, wherein it has been stated that where the
allegations in the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence
justifying an investigation by police officers the court could
interfere and quash the proceedings as against them.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75805 of 2024 dt.27-02-2026
12/15
22. As far as the other petitioners are concerned, this
Court finds that there is prima facie allegations levelled against the
said petitioners and in view of the settled law with regard to the
fact that the High Court under the exercise of its power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not quash criminal proceedings
normally by examining the FIR and embarking upon an inquiry
with regard to the genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR.
The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with
regard to false implication cannot be looked into at this stage,
especially for the fact that the investigation is still pending and the
police has not even submitted its report.
23. The judgment referred to by the learned senior
counsel, appearing on behalf of O.P. No. 2, rendered in the case of
Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited (supra) had given
directions to the Courts exercising the power under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C.
“Conclusions
33. In view of the above and for the
reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the
principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be
justified in passing an interim order of stay of
investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be
adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing
petition under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article
226 of the Constitution of India and in what
circumstances and whether the High Court would be
justified in passing the order of not to arrest the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75805 of 2024 dt.27-02-2026
13/15
accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during
the investigation or till the final report/charge-sheet is
filed under Section 173 CrPC, while
dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing
the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of
powers under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions
are as under:
33.1….
33.2. Courts would not thwart any
investigation into the cognizable offences.
33.3. It is only in cases where no
cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed
in the first information report that the Court will not
permit an investigation to go on.
33.4. The power of quashing should be
exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been
observed, in the “rarest of rare cases” (not to be
confused with the formation in the context of death
penalty).
33.5. While examining an FIR/complaint,
quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark
upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR/complaint.
33.6….
33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should
be an exception rather than an ordinary rule.
33.8 to 33.11 ….
33.12. The first information report is not
an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and
details relating to the offence reported. Therefore,
when the investigation by the police is in progress, the
court should not go into the merits of the allegations in
the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the
investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR
does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts
to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the
investigating officer finds that there is no substance in
the application made by the complainant, the
investigating officer may file an appropriate
report/summary before the learned Magistrate which
may be considered by the learned Magistrate in
accordance with the known procedure.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75805 of 2024 dt.27-02-2026
14/15
33.13 and 33.14 …..
33.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR
is made by the alleged accused and the court when it
exercises the power under Section 482 CrPC, only has
to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose
commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court
is not required to consider on merits whether or not
the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable
offence and the court has to permit the investigating
agency/police to investigate the allegations in the
FIR.”
(emphasis supplied)
24. Thus, in view of the above, at this stage, this Court
cannot embark upon checking the veracity and credibility of the
allegations levelled in the FIR and from the reading of the FIR it
would appear that prima facie allegations of harassment and
demand of dowry are being made out and therefore quashing of
the FIR as far as petitioners no. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Cr. Misc. No.
75805 of 2024 would amount to prejudging and preempting the
result of the investigation which is still pending. It is also a settled
law that the High Court in order to check the veracity of the
complaint cannot conduct a mini trial while hearing an application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
25. This Court also cannot travel into the defence of the
petitioners at the present stage and the petitioners shall always be
at liberty to challenge any subsequent development made in the
case since the submission of charge-sheet.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75805 of 2024 dt.27-02-2026
15/15
26. Thus, in view of the above, the application against
petitioners no. 1 (Sunil Kumar Singh), 3 (Shiven Singh), 6
(Jyotsna Singh @ Jyotsna), 7 (Sweta Singh) and 8 (Aman Singh @
Aman Kumar Singh) in Cr. Misc. No. 75805 of 2024 and
petitioners no. 1 (Anil Kumar Singh) and 2 (Punam Singh) in Cr.
Misc. No. 75931 of 2024, finding them to be premature are,
hereby, dismissed.
27. This Court finds that as far as petitioners no. 2, 4 and
5 are concerned prima facie no case is being made out against
them hence the application, as far as petitioners no. 2 (Manisha
Singh), 4 (Krishna Kumar Singh) and 5 (Sweta Singh) in Cr. Misc.
No. 75805 of 2024 is concerned, which has been filed for quashing
of the FIR being Nayagaon P.S. Case No. 184 of 2024, stands
allowed.
28. The applications partly allowed and disposed of
accordingly.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
krishna/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 18.02.2026
Uploading Date 27.02.2026
Transmission Date 27.02.2026
Checking your session…