Patna High Court
Brijraj Ojha and OrsversusThe State of Bihar and anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The order of cognizance dated 11‑April‑2017 is quashed with respect to petitioners 3 and 4 only.
Summary
The petitioners sought to quash a 11‑April‑2017 order in which a Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance under IPC Section 498A and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all accused in complaint No. 3081(C) of 2016. Petitioners 3 and 4, the brother and sister‑in‑law of the complainant’s husband, contended they were never involved in any dowry demand and that the magistrate had taken cognizance without applying mind, resulting in false implication. The State opposed the relief. Relying on Supreme Court decisions that deprecate falsely implicating relatives in matrimonial disputes, the Patna High Court held that the order of cognizance could not stand against petitioners 3 and 4. Accordingly, the court quashed the cognizance order with respect to those two accused, while allowing proceedings against the remaining co‑accused, including petitioners 1 and 2, to continue. The order was directed to be communicated to the Principal District and Sessions Judge for compliance.
Issues considered
- Whether cognizance under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act can be validly taken against relatives of the husband who are not directly involved in a dowry demand
- Whether the Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate applied sufficient judicial mind in taking cognizance against the accused
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- Dowry harassment
- Section 498A
- False implication
- Cognizance
- Quash order
- Relative liability
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7843 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3081 Year-2016 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
1. Brijraj Ojha and Ors Son of Janardan Ojha Resident of Village and Post
office- Deokuli
2. Sarswati Devi Wife of Brijraj Ojha Resident of Village and Post office-
Deokuli
3. Rajendra Kumar Ojha Son of Brijraj Ojha Resident of Village and Post
office- Deokuli
4. Ritu Ojha Wife of Rajendra Kumar Ojha Resident of Village and Post office-
Deokuli
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Garima Anand Wife of Shailendra kumar Ojha Resident of Village and Post
office- Deokuli
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhanesh Shankar Vidyarthi, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Ajay Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 19-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present application has been filed on behalf of
the petitioners for quashing the order dated 11.04.2017 passed
by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in
Complaint Case No. 3081(C) of 2016 by which learned Court
below has taken cognizance under Section 498(A) of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against
the petitioners.
3. After some argument, learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7843 of 2019(4) dt.19-01-2026
2/4
petitioners is permitted to withdraw the application filed on
behalf of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 to raise all the grounds at the
stage of framing of charge.
4. If an application is filed before the court concerned,
then the learned Court will pass a reasoned order in accordance
with law in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Kanchan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar
reported in (2022) 9 SCC 577.
5. The present application is now restricted to
petitioner nos. 3 and 4 only.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so
far as petitioners no. 3 and 4 are concerned, they are brother and
sister-in-law of the husband of the complainant and there is
general and omnibus allegation against them.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits
that the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order of
cognizance without application of mind and has taken
cognizance against all the accused persons including the
petitioners nos. 3 and 4. He further submits that the petitioners
no. 3 and 4 have never demanded dowry or assaulted the
opposite party no.2 and the allegations made against them are
false.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7843 of 2019(4) dt.19-01-2026
3/4
8. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the
prayer of the petitioner nos. 3 and 4.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti
Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr reported in (2010)
7 SCC 667, in the case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam Vs.
State of Bihar reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 and in the case of
Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana & Anr reported in 2024
SCC Online SC 759 has deprecated the practice of falsely
implicating the relatives of the husband in a matrimonial
dispute.
10. Considering the fact that the petitioner nos. 3 and
4 are the member of the family of the husband of the
complainant and they are not directly involved in the demand of
dowry and therefore, this application is allowed with respect to
the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 only.
11. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated
11.04.2017 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 3081(C) of 2016, is
hereby quashed with regard to the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 only.
12. The proceedings with regard to other co-accused
persons shall continue including the petitioner nos. 1 and 2.
13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7843 of 2019(4) dt.19-01-2026
4/4
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Patna for its compliance
through FAX or e-mail forthwith.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U
Checking your session…