IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2560 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-823 Year-2014 Thana- JEHANABAD COMPLAINT CASE District- Jehanabad ====================================================== 1. Gopal Prasad S/o Late Chandradeep Sao. R/v, Post and P.S.- Bhagwanganj, District- Patna. 2. Durga Prasad S/o Gopal Prasad R/v, Post and P.S.- Bhagwanganj, District-Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Shanti Devi W/o Ganesh Prasad, D/o Rajendra Sao R/v- Usari, Neema Bazar, Police Station- Mehandiya, District- Arwal. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 18-08-2026 Heard the parties. 2. The present quashing petition has been preferred to quash order of cognizance dated 03.07.2015 passed in Complaint Case No. 823 of 2014 in which cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under sections 323, 498(A), 504/34 of IPC, pending in the court of learned ACJM-1st Class, Arwal (Jehanabad).

3. From the crux of complaint petition it appears that petitioners alleged to commit mental and physical cruelty upon complainant/ OP No. 2 due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry as raised for cash of Rs. 50,000/-, golden Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2560 of 2019 dt.18-08-2026 2/6 chain and motorcycle. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that from the perusal of complaint, no prima facie case is made out against petitioners for the reasons that petitioner no. 1 is father-in-law of the complainant and petitioner no. 2 is brother-in-law. It is submitted that their implication appears only out of being close relative with ulterior and oblique motive, suggesting harassing attitude. It is a classical case of malicious prosecution and misuse of provisions of Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. While concluding the argument, it is submitted that even from the perusal of complaint petition, the allegation qua petitioners is appearing very much general and omnibus. 5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the legal reports of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in the matter of Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083. 6. Learned APP appearing for the State while opposing the application submitted that petitioners being in-Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2560 of 2019 dt.18-08-2026 3/6 laws played active role towards alleged mental and physical cruelty to O.P. No. 2, by raising demand of dowry.

7. It would be apposite to reproduce relevant Paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 14 ,15, 16 & 17 of Abhishek Case (supra), which read as:-

12. The contours of the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are well defined. In V. Ravi Kumar v. State represented by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu [(2019) 14 SCC 568], this Court affirmed that where an accused seeks quashing of the FIR, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in thecomplaint.InNeeharikaInfrastructure(P).Ltd. v.Stateof Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021, decided on 13.04.2021], a 3-Judge Bench of this Court elaborately considered the scope and extent of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, such standard not being confused with the norm formulated in the context of the death penalty. It was further observed that while examining the FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of theallegationsmadetherein,butiftheCourtthinksfit,regard beinghadtotheparametersofquashingandtheself-restraint imposed by law, and more particularly, the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], the Court would have jurisdiction to quashtheFIR/complaint.

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. StateofBihar[(2022)6SCC599],thisCourthadoccasionto deal with asimilar situation where the High Court hadrefused 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 thehusband inmatrimonialdisputes.ThisCourt observed that falseimplications by way ofgeneral omnibus allegationsmade Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2560 of 2019 dt.18-08-2026 4/6

inthecourse of matrimonial disputes,ifleftunchecked, 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,wouldinflictseverescarsupontheaccusedandsuch anexerciseoughttobediscouraged. 14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 SCC 667], this Court noted that the tendency to implicate the husband andall hisimmediaterelations isalso 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, isnotthe‘beallandendall’ofthematter,aswhatisrequired to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of theoffencecommittedbyeachandeveryaccusedandtherole played by each and every accused in the commission of that offence. These observations were made in the context of a matrimonialdisputeinvolvingSection498AIPC.

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, theHigh Court owes a duty tolook intothe FIR with care and alittlemore closely.Itwasfurtherobservedthat itwillnotbe 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,totryandreadbetweenthelines. 17. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court had set out, by way of illustration, the broad categories of cases in which the inherentpowerunderSection 482Cr.P.C.couldbeexercised. Para102ofthedecisionreadsasfollows:

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2560 of 2019 dt.18-08-2026 5/6 various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a seriesofdecisionsrelatingtotheexerciseoftheextraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such powershouldbeexercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2)Wheretheallegationsinthefirstinformantreport and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) oftheCode.

(3)Wheretheuncontrovertedallegationsmadeinthe FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the samedonotdisclosethecommissionofanyoffenceandmake outacaseagainsttheaccused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officerwithoutanorderofaMagistrateascontemplatedunder Section155(2)oftheCode. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent persons can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding againsttheaccused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in anyof theprovisionsoftheCode ortheconcerned Act (under whichacriminalproceeding isinstituted) totheinstitutionand continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficaciousredressforthegrievanceoftheaggrievedparty. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafideand/orwheretheproceedingismaliciouslyinstituted withanulteriormotiveforwreakingvengeanceontheaccused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 8. In view of aforesaid legal and factual submissions as petitioners are in-laws, having no connection with daily and domestic affairs of O.P. No.2, where allegation Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2560 of 2019 dt.18-08-2026 6/6

of cruelty is also appearing very much general and omnibus against them. 9. In view of aforesaid factual background and by taking guiding note of Abhishek case (supra), impugned order of taking cognizance dated 03.07.2015 with all its consequential proceedings, qua both above-named petitioners arising thereof as passed in connection with Complaint Case No. 823 of 2014 pending before learned ACJM-1st Class, Arwal, Jehanabad is hereby quashed and set aside. 10. Hence, this application stands allowed. 11. TCR (Trial Court Records), if any, be returned to learned trial court alongwith the copy of this judgment. (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) Sudha/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 19.08.2026 Transmission Date 19.08.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2560 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-823 Year-2014 Thana- JEHANABAD COMPLAINT CASE District- Jehanabad ====================================================== 1. Gopal Prasad S/o Late Chandradeep Sao. R/v, Post and P.S.- Bhagwanganj, District- Patna. 2. Durga Prasad S/o Gopal Prasad R/v, Post and P.S.- Bhagwanganj, District-Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Shanti Devi W/o Ganesh Prasad, D/o Rajendra Sao R/v- Usari, Neema Bazar, Police Station- Mehandiya, District- Arwal. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 18-08-2026 Heard the parties. 2. The present quashing petition has been preferred to quash order of cognizance dated 03.07.2015 passed in Complaint Case No. 823 of 2014 in which cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under sections 323, 498(A), 504/34 of IPC, pending in the court of learned ACJM-1st Class, Arwal (Jehanabad).

3. From the crux of complaint petition it appears that petitioners alleged to commit mental and physical cruelty upon complainant/ OP No. 2 due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry as raised for cash of Rs. 50,000/-, golden Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2560 of 2019 dt.18-08-2026 2/6 chain and motorcycle. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that from the perusal of complaint, no prima facie case is made out against petitioners for the reasons that petitioner no. 1 is father-in-law of the complainant and petitioner no. 2 is brother-in-law. It is submitted that their implication appears only out of being close relative with ulterior and oblique motive, suggesting harassing attitude. It is a classical case of malicious prosecution and misuse of provisions of Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. While concluding the argument, it is submitted that even from the perusal of complaint petition, the allegation qua petitioners is appearing very much general and omnibus. 5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the legal reports of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in the matter of Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083. 6. Learned APP appearing for the State while opposing the application submitted that petitioners being in-Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2560 of 2019 dt.18-08-2026 3/6 laws played active role towards alleged mental and physical cruelty to O.P. No. 2, by raising demand of dowry.

7. It would be apposite to reproduce relevant Paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 14 ,15, 16 & 17 of Abhishek Case (supra), which read as:-

12. The contours of the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are well defined. In V. Ravi Kumar v. State represented by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu [(2019) 14 SCC 568], this Court affirmed that where an accused seeks quashing of the FIR, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in thecomplaint.InNeeharikaInfrastructure(P).Ltd. v.Stateof Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021, decided on 13.04.2021], a 3-Judge Bench of this Court elaborately considered the scope and extent of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, such standard not being confused with the norm formulated in the context of the death penalty. It was further observed that while examining the FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of theallegationsmadetherein,butiftheCourtthinksfit,regard beinghadtotheparametersofquashingandtheself-restraint imposed by law, and more particularly, the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], the Court would have jurisdiction to quashtheFIR/complaint.

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. StateofBihar[(2022)6SCC599],thisCourthadoccasionto deal with asimilar situation where the High Court hadrefused 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 thehusband inmatrimonialdisputes.ThisCourt observed that falseimplications by way ofgeneral omnibus allegationsmade Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2560 of 2019 dt.18-08-2026 4/6

inthecourse of matrimonial disputes,ifleftunchecked, 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,wouldinflictseverescarsupontheaccusedandsuch anexerciseoughttobediscouraged. 14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 SCC 667], this Court noted that the tendency to implicate the husband andall hisimmediaterelations isalso 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, isnotthe‘beallandendall’ofthematter,aswhatisrequired to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of theoffencecommittedbyeachandeveryaccusedandtherole played by each and every accused in the commission of that offence. These observations were made in the context of a matrimonialdisputeinvolvingSection498AIPC.

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, theHigh Court owes a duty tolook intothe FIR with care and alittlemore closely.Itwasfurtherobservedthat itwillnotbe 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,totryandreadbetweenthelines. 17. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court had set out, by way of illustration, the broad categories of cases in which the inherentpowerunderSection 482Cr.P.C.couldbeexercised. Para102ofthedecisionreadsasfollows:

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2560 of 2019 dt.18-08-2026 5/6 various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a seriesofdecisionsrelatingtotheexerciseoftheextraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such powershouldbeexercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2)Wheretheallegationsinthefirstinformantreport and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) oftheCode.

(3)Wheretheuncontrovertedallegationsmadeinthe FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the samedonotdisclosethecommissionofanyoffenceandmake outacaseagainsttheaccused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officerwithoutanorderofaMagistrateascontemplatedunder Section155(2)oftheCode. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent persons can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding againsttheaccused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in anyof theprovisionsoftheCode ortheconcerned Act (under whichacriminalproceeding isinstituted) totheinstitutionand continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficaciousredressforthegrievanceoftheaggrievedparty. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafideand/orwheretheproceedingismaliciouslyinstituted withanulteriormotiveforwreakingvengeanceontheaccused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 8. In view of aforesaid legal and factual submissions as petitioners are in-laws, having no connection with daily and domestic affairs of O.P. No.2, where allegation Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2560 of 2019 dt.18-08-2026 6/6

of cruelty is also appearing very much general and omnibus against them. 9. In view of aforesaid factual background and by taking guiding note of Abhishek case (supra), impugned order of taking cognizance dated 03.07.2015 with all its consequential proceedings, qua both above-named petitioners arising thereof as passed in connection with Complaint Case No. 823 of 2014 pending before learned ACJM-1st Class, Arwal, Jehanabad is hereby quashed and set aside. 10. Hence, this application stands allowed. 11. TCR (Trial Court Records), if any, be returned to learned trial court alongwith the copy of this judgment. (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) Sudha/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 19.08.2026 Transmission Date 19.08.2026