Patna High Court

Rashid Ahmad and OrsversusState Of Bihar and Anr

Decided: 2 July 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

Holding

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, holding that the allegations were general and omnibus and did not establish a prima facie case, and that proceeding would be an abuse of process.

Summary

The petitioners, who are relatives of the husband in a matrimonial dispute, filed applications under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash the order of an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate that had taken cognizance of offences under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial court had proceeded on the basis of a complaint alleging dowry demand and cruelty, but the petitioners argued that the allegations against them were vague, omnibus and lacked any specific act attributable to each of them. The High Court examined the scope of its inherent jurisdiction, referring to Supreme Court precedents that require a prima facie case before proceeding and caution against misuse of criminal law in matrimonial conflicts. It held that the complaint did not disclose any specific overt act by the petitioners and that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process. Consequently, the Court set aside the magistrate’s order and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, while disposing of a parallel application as not pressed.

Issues considered

Whether the order taking cognizance of offences under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 Dowry Act against the husband’s relatives can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the complaint and inquiry material disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners.
Whether continuation of the criminal proceeding would constitute an abuse of the court’s process.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Section 498A IPC
Dowry Prohibition Act
Section 482 CrPC
quash of criminal proceedings
matrimonial dispute
abuse of process
omnibus allegations
husband's relatives
high court inherent jurisdiction

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9683 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6176 Year-2015 Thana- NAWADAH COMPLAINT CASE
District- Nawada
======================================================
1. Rashid Ahmad, S/o Md. Jiyauddin,
2. Sahabuddin, S/o Md. Jiyauddin,
3. Sabauddin, S/o Md. Jiyauddin,
4. Rahmat @ Noori, W/o Md. Rashid,
5. Jalaluddin, S/o late Qumaruddin
6. Talhat W/o Jalaluddin
7. Nasima Khatoon, W/o Md. Jiyauddin All R/o- Mohalla- Khankah,
Makhdumbagh, P.S.- Laheri, Distt.- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Qayanat Sazia, W/o Zahid Ahmad @ Pappu, D/o Ale Rasum, R/o Vill-
Koshi, PS- Roh, Distt- Nawada.

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 11020 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6176 Year-2015 Thana- NAWADAH COMPLAINT CASE
District- Nawada
======================================================
1. Rashid Ahmad, S/o Md. Jiyauddin
2. Sahabuddin, S/o Md. Jiyauddin
3. Sabauddin, S/o Md. Jiyauddin
4. Rahmat @ Noori, W/o Md. Rashid
5. Jalaluddin, S/o late Qumaruddin,
6. Talhat, W/o Jalaluddin,
7. Nasima Khatoon, W/o Jiyauddin, all R/o-Mohalla Khankah, Makhdumbah,
PS-Laheri, Distt.-Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Qayanat Sazia, W/o Zahid Ahmad, @ Pappu D/o Ale Rasum, R/o Vill-
Koshi, PS-Roh, Distt.-Nawada
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9683 of 2018(12) dt.02-07-2026
2/16

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 9683 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma, Advocate.
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 11020 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh 1, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER

12 02-07-2026 Re: Cr. Misc No.9683 of 2018

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as

learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been preferred under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C’) to quash the order dated

13.10.2017 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge,

Nawada in connection with Cr. Rev. No.64 of 2017, whereby

the revision preferred by the present petitioners against the order

dated 08.09.2017 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Nawada in

Complaint Case No. C 6176 of 2015 was dismissed, affirming

the condition imposed while granting bail requiring the

petitioners to remain physically present on each and every date

of the proceeding till the appearance of the other co-accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very

outset, submits that he does not wish to press the present

application and accordingly, the same may be disposed of.

4. Learned APP for the State submits that he has no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9683 of 2018(12) dt.02-07-2026
3/16

objection if the present application is disposed of as not pressed.

5. In view of the aforesaid submission, the present

Criminal Miscellaneous No.9683 of 2018 is disposed of as not

pressed.

Re: Cr. Misc No.11020 of 2018

6. The present application has been filed under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated

03.11.2015 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., III, Nawada

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Magistrate’) in connection with

Complaint Case No. C 6176 of 2015, wherein the learned

Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section

4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the present

petitioners, who are in-laws of the O.P. No.2 and also against

other accused person.

7. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the

complainant (O.P. No.2) was married to Md. Jahid (co-accused)

on 13.06.2010 according to Muslim rites and customs. It is

alleged that at the time of marriage, sufficient cash, articles and

other valuables were given by way of dowry. However, soon

after the marriage, the husband of the complainant (O.P. No.2)

and his family members allegedly started demanding an
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9683 of 2018(12) dt.02-07-2026
4/16

additional sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with a four-wheeler and,

on account of non-fulfilment of the said demand, subjected the

complainant (O.P. No.2) to cruelty. It is further alleged that she

was turned out of her matrimonial home on different occasions

and, despite her returning to the matrimonial home, the alleged

acts of cruelty and demand of dowry continued. Ultimately,

alleging that she was again driven out from her matrimonial

home and was subsequently threatened by the accused persons,

the complainant (O.P. No.2) instituted Complaint Case No. C

6176 of 2015 against her husband and the present petitioners,

who are the relatives of her husband.

8. Upon perusal of the complaint petition, the solemn

affirmation of the complainant (O.P. No.2) and the statements of

the inquiry witnesses recorded during the inquiry, the learned

Magistrate, being satisfied that a prima facie case was made out,

vide the impugned order dated 03.11.2015 took cognizance of

the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal

Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all the

accused persons and directed issuance of process. Being

aggrieved by the said order taking cognizance and summoning

them to face trial, the present petitioners have invoked the

inherent jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9683 of 2018(12) dt.02-07-2026
5/16

application.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

impugned order taking cognizance is wholly unsustainable in

law, as the learned Magistrate has mechanically taken

cognizance without properly appreciating the allegations made

in the complaint petition and the materials collected during the

inquiry. It is submitted that the order is bereft of any discussion

demonstrating application of judicial mind to the individual role

attributed to each of the petitioners. He further submits that the

petitioners are merely the relatives of the husband of the O.P.

No.2 (complainant), comprising her mother-in-law, brothers-in-

law, sister-in-law and other extended family members, who have

been implicated solely on account of their relationship with the

husband. Learned counsel submits that the allegations levelled

in the complaint petition are general, omnibus and sweeping in

nature and no specific overt act constituting the ingredients of

the alleged offences has been attributed to any of the petitioners.

It is argued that even the statements recorded during the inquiry

do not disclose any distinct role of the petitioners warranting

their prosecution.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits

that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9683 of 2018(12) dt.02-07-2026
6/16

petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of the

Court. It is submitted that the petitioners reside separately and

have no concern with the matrimonial affairs of the O.P. No.2

and her husband. It is lastly submitted that where the allegations

against the relatives of the husband are vague and omnibus, the

criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed at the threshold.

11. Learned APP for the State submits that the

allegations made in the complaint petition disclose prima facie

commission of cognizable offences and the learned Magistrate

has rightly taken cognizance.

12. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned APP for the State, and upon perusal of the materials

available on record, this Court proceeds to examine whether the

continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner

would be in the interest of justice or would amount to abuse of

the process of the Court.

13. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of

this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is of wide amplitude,

yet its exercise is circumscribed by well-settled judicial

principles. The power is intended to prevent abuse of the process

of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and is not

to be exercised as if this Court were sitting in appeal over an

order taking cognizance. At the stage of cognizance, the Court is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9683 of 2018(12) dt.02-07-2026
7/16

only required to examine whether the complaint petition and the

materials collected during the inquiry disclose the commission of

a prima facie offence. It is neither permissible to meticulously

appreciate the evidence nor to adjudicate upon the probable

defence of the accused. Nevertheless, where the allegations, even

if accepted at their face value, fail to satisfy the essential

ingredients of the alleged offences or where the continuation of

the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process

of the Court, the inherent jurisdiction can justifiably be invoked

to interdict such prosecution. It is in the light of these settled

parameters that the challenge to the impugned order is required

to be examined.

14. At this stage, it is apposite to reproduce some

relevant paragraphs of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in

(2023) 16 SCC 666 with respect to the contours of the power to

quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The

Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:

“16. 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 v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599],
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9683 of 2018(12) dt.02-07-2026
8/16

this Court had occasion to deal with a
similar situation where the High Court had
refused [Mohd. Ikram v. State of Bihar, 2019
SCC OnLine Pat 1985] to quash an FIR
registered for various offences, including
Section 498-A 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
498-A 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.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
19. Of more recent origin is the decision of
this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P.
[(2023) 15 SCC 488] on the legal principles
applicable apropos Section 482 CrPC.
Therein, it was observed that when an
accused comes before the High Court,
invoking either the inherent power under
Section 482 CrPC 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9683 of 2018(12) dt.02-07-2026
9/16

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.”

15. Upon a careful examination of the complaint

petition, it transpires that the gravamen of the allegations pertains

to the alleged demand of additional dowry and acts of cruelty

said to have been committed after the marriage of the O.P. No.2

(complainant). However, except for making a general assertion

that all the accused persons demanded dowry and subjected her

to cruelty, the complaint does not attribute any specific role or

overt act to the present petitioners. The allegations against them

are couched in broad and collective terms without indicating the

manner in which each of the petitioners is alleged to have

participated in the commission of the alleged offences.

16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again

held that in cases arising out of matrimonial discord, the Courts

are required to exercise greater caution and carefully scrutinize

the allegations, particularly when criminal proceedings are

sought to be initiated against the relatives of the husband, so as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9683 of 2018(12) dt.02-07-2026
10/16

to prevent misuse of the criminal process. The Hon’ble Apex

Court in Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.,

reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 has observed as under:

“32. It is a matter of common experience that
most of these complaints under Section 498-
A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment
over trivial issues without proper
deliberations. We come across a large
number of such complaints which are not
even bona fide and are filed with oblique
motive. At the same time, rapid increase in
the number of genuine cases of dowry
harassment is also a matter of serious
concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have
enormous social responsibility and
obligation to ensure that the social fibre of
family life is not ruined or demolished. They
must ensure that exaggerated versions of
small incidents should not be reflected in the
criminal complaints. Majority of the
complaints are filed either on their advice or
with their concurrence. The learned
members of the Bar who belong to a noble
profession must maintain its noble traditions
and should treat every complaint under
Section 498-A as a basic human problem and
must make serious endeavour to help the
parties in arriving at an amicable resolution
of that human problem. They must discharge
their duties to the best of their abilities to
ensure that social fibre, peace and
tranquillity of the society remains intact. The
members of the Bar should also ensure that
one complaint should not lead to multiple
cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the
complaint the implications and consequences
are not properly visualised by the
complainant that such complaint can lead to
insurmountable harassment, agony and pain
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9683 of 2018(12) dt.02-07-2026
11/16

to the complainant, accused and his close
relations.
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find
out the truth and punish the guilty and
protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a
Herculean task in majority of these
complaints. The tendency of implicating the
husband and all his immediate relations is
also not uncommon. At times, even after the
conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult
to ascertain the real truth. 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. The
allegations of harassment of husband's
close relations who had been living in
different cities and never visited or rarely
visited the place where the complainant
resided would have an entirely different
complexion. The allegations of the
complainant are required to be scrutinised
with great care and circumspection.”
(emphasis supplied)

17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra &

Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 has

observed as under:

“20. Coming to the facts of this case, when
the contents of the FIR are perused, it is
apparent that there are no allegations
against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji
Mehrotra except casual reference of their
names which have been included in the FIR
but mere casual reference of the names of the
family members in a matrimonial dispute
without allegation of active involvement in
the matter would not justify taking
cognizance against them overlooking the fact
borne out of experience that there is a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9683 of 2018(12) dt.02-07-2026
12/16

tendency to involve the entire family
members of the household in the domestic
quarrel taking place in a matrimonial
dispute specially if it happens soon after the
wedding.
21. It would be relevant at this stage to take
note of an apt observation of this Court
recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad
[(2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733]
wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this
Court had held that the High Court should
have quashed the complaint arising out of a
matrimonial dispute wherein all family
members had been roped into the
matrimonial litigation which was quashed
and set aside. Their Lordships observed
therein with which we entirely agree that:
(SCC p. 698, para 12)
“12. There has been an outburst of
matrimonial disputes in recent times.
Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main
purpose of which is to enable the young
couple to settle down in life and live
peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes
suddenly erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in commission of
heinous crimes in which elders of the family
are also involved with the result that those
who could have counselled and brought
about rapprochement are rendered helpless
on their being arrayed as accused in the
criminal case. There are many other reasons
which need not be mentioned here for not
encouraging matrimonial litigation so that
the parties may ponder over their defaults
and terminate their disputes amicably by
mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in
a court of law where it takes years and years
to conclude and in that process the parties
lose their ‘young’ days in chasing their
‘cases’ in different courts.”
The view taken by the Judges in that matter
was that the courts would not encourage such
disputes.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9683 of 2018(12) dt.02-07-2026
13/16

18. It further appears from the complaint petition that

the present petitioners are the relatives of the husband,

comprising the mother-in-law, brothers-in-law, sister-in-law and

other extended family members. The complaint narrates that the

complainant (O.P. No.2) was allegedly turned out of her

matrimonial home on different occasions and subsequently

returned to reside there. However, beyond the omnibus allegation

that all the accused persons subjected her to cruelty for non-

fulfilment of dowry demand, there is no specific assertion as to

the date, place or nature of the acts allegedly committed by any

of the present petitioners. The statements recorded during the

inquiry also substantially reiterate the allegations contained in the

complaint without disclosing any distinct role attributable to each

of the petitioners.

19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan

Kausar @ Sonam and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported

in (2022) 6 SCC 599, has observed as under:

“17. The abovementioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this Court has at numerous
instances expressed concern over the misuse
of Section 498-A I.P.C and the increased
tendency of implicating relatives of the
husband in matrimonial disputes, without
analysing the long-term ramifications of a
trial on the complainant as well as the
accused. It is further manifest from the said
judgments that false implication by way of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9683 of 2018(12) dt.02-07-2026
14/16

general omnibus allegations made in the
course of matrimonial dispute, if left
unchecked would result in misuse of the
process of law. Therefore, this Court by way
of its judgments has warned the courts from
proceeding against the relatives and in-laws
of the husband when no prima facie case is
made out against them.”

20. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin

Gupta v. State of Haryana and Anr., reported in (2025) 3 SCC

756, has reiterated the settled legal position and observed as

under:

“35. In one of the recent pronouncements of
this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P.
[Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., (2023) 15
SCC 488], authored by one of us (J.B.
Pardiwala, J.), the legal principle applicable
apropos Section 482CrPC was examined.
Therein, it was observed that when an
accused comes before the High Court,
invoking either the inherent power under
Section 482CrPC 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9683 of 2018(12) dt.02-07-2026
15/16

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.”
(emphasis supplied)

21. It is thus settled position of law that while

considering a prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings at the

threshold, the Court is required to examine whether the

allegations made in the complaint, together with the materials

placed on record in support thereof, disclose the commission of a

prima facie offence against the accused warranting continuation

of the criminal prosecution.

22. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the

present case, this Court finds that the allegations levelled against

the present petitioners are predominantly general and omnibus in

nature, bereft of any specific attribution of overt acts constituting

the ingredients of the alleged offences. The complaint petition

and the inquiry materials, even if taken at their face value, do not

prima facie justify the prosecution of the petitioners merely

because they are relatives of the husband. In such circumstances,

the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the present

petitioners would warrant examination in the light of the

principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of

Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal &Ors., reported in 1992 Supp
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9683 of 2018(12) dt.02-07-2026
16/16

(1) SCC 335 and Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar

Pradesh, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947 particularly the

categories wherein the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court

may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court

and to secure the ends of justice.

23. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and

for the reasons recorded, Criminal Miscellaneous No.11020 of

2018 deserves to succeed and is, accordingly, allowed. The

impugned order dated 03.11.2015 passed by the learned

A.C.J.M., III, Nawada in Complaint Case No. C 6176 of 2015,

whereby cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable

under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act against the present petitioners, is

hereby set aside. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding

arising out of Complaint Case No. C 6176 of 2015, so far as it

relates to the present petitioners, stands quashed.

24. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court

concerned forthwith for needful and compliance.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.