Patna High Court
Jai Shankar Kumar @ Shankar Singh and OrsversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The order of cognizance dated 29‑10‑2009 is quashed with respect to petitioner 3.
Summary
The petitioners filed an application to quash the order of cognizance dated 29‑10‑2009 issued by the Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, which had taken cognizance under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against them in a dowry‑related complaint. Petitioners 1 and 2 withdrew their applications, leaving only petitioner 3 (Pankaj Kumar) who alleged he had no role in any dowry demand or assault. The State opposed the application. The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents that discourage false implication of a husband’s relatives in matrimonial disputes. Finding that petitioner 3 was merely a family member and not directly involved in the alleged dowry demand, the Court allowed the application with respect to him. Consequently, the order of cognizance was quashed for petitioner 3, while proceedings against the remaining co‑accused were ordered to continue.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of cognizance under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 D.P. Act against petitioner 3 is valid despite the absence of direct involvement in dowry demand.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- Section 498A IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- quash of cognizance
- false implication
- matrimonial dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9419 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2135 Year-2008 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Gaya
======================================================
1. Jai Shankar Kumar @ Shankar Singh son of Bhuneshwar Prasad.
2. Reeta Devi wife of Jay Shankar Kumar @ Shankar Singh
3. Pankaj Kumar, son of Bhuneshwar Prasad All are resident of Village-
Kormathu, Police Station- Belaganj, District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar
2. Rinki Devi @ Rinki Kumari wife of Rajeev Ranjan Kumar, resident of
Village- Kormathu, Police Station- Belaganj, District- Gaya. at present
resident of Village- Diha, Police Station- Belaganj, District- Gaya.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kunwar Narayan Jamuar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Dr. M.K.Gautam app
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
6 07-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. This application has been filed on behalf of the
petitioners for setting aside/quashing the order of cognizance
dated 29.10.2009 by which the Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Patna took cognizance under Sections 498A of
Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of D.P. Act against the
petitioners in connection with Complaint Case No.2135 of 2008.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners along
with other co-accused persons are said to have tortured and
ousted the opposite party no.2 from her matrimonial home over
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9419 of 2016(6) dt.07-01-2026
2/3
dowry demand.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the
petitioners prays for and is permitted to withdraw application
filed on behalf of petitioners no.1 and 2 with liberty to raise the
grounds at an appropriate stage.
5. The application of the petitioners no. 1 and 2 is
dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so
far as petitioners no. 3 is concerned, he is the brother of the
father-in-law of the complainant and there is general and
omnibus allegation against him.
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 no. 3. He further submits that the petitioners no. 3
had never demanded dowry or assaulted the opposite party no.2.
8. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the
application of the petitioner no. 3.
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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9419 of 2016(6) dt.07-01-2026
3/3
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 petitioners no. 3 and
is the member of the family and he is not directly involved in
the demand of dowry, this application is allowed with respect to
the petitioners no.3 only.
11. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated
29.10.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Patna in connection with Complaint Case No.2135 of 2008, is
hereby quashed with regard to the petitioners no. 3 only.
12. The proceedings with regard to other co-accused
persons shall continue.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Vikas/-
U
Checking your session…