Umesh Prasad SharmaversusThe State of Bihar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86355 of 2023

         Arising out of PS. Case No.-195 Year-2022 Thana- BARGAINIA District- Sitamarhi
     ======================================================
1.    Umesh Prasad Sharma, Son of Late Ram Prasad Sharma, Resident of
      Village- Pachtaki Ram, PS- Bairgania, Distt- Sitamarhi
2.   Rama Sharma, Wife of Umesh Prasad Sharma, Resident of Village- Pachtaki
     Ram, PS- Bairgania, Distt- Sitamarhi
3.   Raman Kumar, Son of Umesh Prasad Sharma, Resident of Village- Pachtaki
     Ram, Ps- Bairgania, Distt- Sitamarhi

                                                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                            Versus
1.   The State of Bihar
2.   Simmi Mishra, Wife of Mrityunjay, Resident of Village- Pachtaki Ram, PS-
     Bairgania, Distt- Sitamarhi At Present Resident of Block A 1, Gali No. 18,
     House No. 24, Bangali Colony, Santi Nagar, Burari , Delhi.

                                            ... ... Opposite Party/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate
     For the State            :        Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma, APP
     For the Informant        :        Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
                           ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 01-05-2026

                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

     counsel for the Informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor

     for the State.

                  2. Petitioners seek quashing of the order of cognizance

     dated 20.09.2023 passed by learned Sub-divisional Judicial

     Magistrate, Sadar, Sitamarhi in Bairgania P.S. Case No. 195 of

     2022 by which he has taken cognizance for the offences under
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86355 of 2023 dt.01-05-2026
                                  2/6




Sections 341, 323, 498(A) and 504/34 IPC and Section 3/4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act.

          3.     The prosecution case is that the informant was

married to the son of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 on 26.05.2017 as per

Hindu Rites and rituals. Thereafter, she was being subjected to

cruelty due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry and ultimately

on 26.06.2022 she was ousted from the matrimonial home after

snatching her belongings.

          4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

Petitioner No. 1 is father-in-law, Petitioner No. 2 is mother-in-law

and Petitioner No. 3 is the brother-in-law (Devar) of the informant.

It is further submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation

against the petitioners. It is also submitted that after filing divorce

case by son of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 bearing Divorce Case No.

75 of 2022 on 21.03.2022 the present case has been lodged by the

informant to save her skin.

          5. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed

the quashing of the order of cognizance dated 20.09.2023.

          6. A perusal of the records would show that allegations

are primarily against husband. Moreover, the allegation against in-

laws is general and omnibus without any specific detail of
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86355 of 2023 dt.01-05-2026
                                3/6




objective material to support the allegation. Thus this Court holds

that the present prosecution is nothing but an abuse of the process

of the Court in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision rendered

in the case of State of Haryana vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal and

Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. Moreover, in the case of

Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [2023 SCC

Online SC 1083] Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Paragraph Nos.

13 to 16 has held 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86355 of 2023 dt.01-05-2026
                   4/6




  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 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
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86355 of 2023 dt.01-05-2026
                               5/6




              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.

         7. Resultantly, the order of cognizance dated 20.09.2023

passed by learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar,

Sitamarhi in Bairgania P.S. Case No. 195 of 2022 by which he has

taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 498(A)
                                 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86355 of 2023 dt.01-05-2026
                                                    6/6




                    and 504/34 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is

                    quashed so far as the petitioners are concerned.

                              8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.



Vikash/-                                                  (Ansul, J)
AFR/NAFR              NAFR
CAV DATE              N/A
Uploading Date
Transmission Date