Allowed¶35

Nitu Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC31 Oct 2025CR. MISC./100/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing application; Section 528 BNSS; Sections 498A/504 IPC; Sections 3 and 4 D.P. Act; cognizance order dated 08.05.2023; Complaint Case No.358/2023 Saran Chapra; dowry demand torture; general and omnibus allegations; roping in of husband's family members; nanad, mother-in-law, dewar, father-in-law; matrimonial dispute; Navneesh Aggarwal 2025 INSC 963; Mange Ram SLP(C) No.10817 of 2024; Dara Lakshmi Narayana (2025) 3 SCC 735; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303; Naushey Ali (2025) 4 SCC 78; proceedings and cognizance quashed against in-laws; Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.100 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.358/2023 and the order taking cognizance dated 08.05.2023 set aside and quashed with respect to petitioner nos. 1 to 4; the quashing application stands disposed of. ¶35

Nitu Kumari Vs The State of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 08.05.2023 taking cognizance under Sections 498A/504 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, and the entire proceedings in Complaint Case No.358/2023, are liable to be quashed against the petitioners (the complainant's married Nanad, mother-in-law, Dewar and father-in-law) on the ground that the allegations against them are general and omnibus.

¶34

Court's answer

On perusal of the complaint there is no specific allegation against petitioner nos. 1 to 4, who are the married Nanad, mother-in-law, Dewar and father-in-law of the complainant respectively; the allegation against them is general and omnibus.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

No case under Sections 498A/504 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act is made out against the petitioners.

¶35

Key takeaways

The entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.358/2023 and the order taking cognizance dated 08.05.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Saran are set aside and quashed with respect to the petitioners.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Purnendu Singh, J.), by order dated 31-10-2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.100 of 2025, allowed a quashing application under Section 528 BNSS filed by four in-laws of the complainant (married Nanad, mother-in-law, Dewar and father-in-law) in Complaint Case No.358/2023 (PS Case No.358/2023, Saran), in which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Saran at Chapra had taken cognizance on 08.05.2023 under Sections 498A/504 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act on allegations of torture for non-fulfilment of dowry demand. Relying on Navneesh Aggarwal v. State of Haryana, 2025 INSC 963, and Mange Ram v. State of M.P., SLP(C) No.10817 of 2024 (which quotes Dara Lakshmi Narayana (2025) 3 SCC 735, Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Naushey Ali (2025) 4 SCC 78), the Court found that there was no specific allegation against the petitioners and that the allegations were general and omnibus, held that no case under the cited provisions was made out against them, and set aside and quashed the entire proceedings and the cognizance order qua the petitioners.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.100 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-358 Year-2023 Thana- SARAN COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSaran

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Nitu Kumari W/o- Rahul Kumar, D/o- Bhuneshwar Singh Resident of village- Prabhunath nagar Maharana pratap colony Police station- Chapra Muffasil District- Saran Chapra

¶5

Geeta Devi W/o- Bhuneshwar Singh Resident of village- Prabhunath nagar Maharana pratap colony Police station- Chapra Muffasil District- Saran Chapra

¶6

Rupesh Kumar @ Rupesh Kumar Singh S/o- Bhuneshwar Singh Resident of village- Prabhunath nagar Maharana pratap colony Police station- Chapra Muffasil District- Saran Chapra

¶7

Bhuneshwar Singh S/o- Late Shiv Kumar Singh Resident of villagePrabhunath nagar Maharana pratap colony Police station- Chapra Muffasil District- Saran Chapra

¶8

... ... Petitioner/s

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Bihar

¶11

Swati Kumari W/o- Nitesh Kumar Gautam, D/o- Nagendra Kumar Singh At present resident of Village- Indrapuri Bichala Telpa Ps- Chapra Town DistSaran

¶12

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Mili Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwary, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶13

3 31-10-2025

¶14

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶15

The present application has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing the order dated 08.05.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Saran at

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.100 of 2025(3) dt.31-10-2025 2/5

¶17

Chapra in complaint Case No.358/2023, Eng. No.90/2023, Tr. No.3642/2024, by which learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 498 A/504 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

¶18

The allegation is of subjecting the complainant –

¶19

opposite party no.2 to various sorts of torture due to nonfulfillment of the demand of the dowry.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the learned District Court has not considered that the allegation is not against the society. He further submitted that the material available on record don’t disclose any criminal element and without considering this aspect, the order taking cognizance against the petitioners cannot sustain in the eye of law. He further submitted that O.P. No.2 was married with Nitesh Kumar Gautam, who is son of petitioners no.2 and 4. Petitioner no. 1 is married Nanad , petitioner no.2 is mother-in-law, petitioner no.3 is Dewar and petitioner no.4 are father-in-law of the complainant. Learned counsel further submitted that marriage is a sacred ceremony but for little matrimonial skirmish between husband and wife, the petitioners are facing criminal prosecution for the reason they are in-laws. The learned District Court has not considered

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.100 of 2025(3) dt.31-10-2025 3/5

¶22

this aspect, which calls for interference of this Court.

¶23

Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 submitted that the opposite party no.2 is being harassed by the petitioners and, as such, the present quashing application is fit to be dismissed.

¶24

Heard the parties.

¶25

It is commonly seen in the society that the entire family members, as well as, relatives are made accused along with the husband to face criminal prosecution. The Apex Court has demarcated the manner in which the complaints are entertained by the learned District Court.

¶26

The law in respect of matrimonial dispute between husband and wife is well settled at the same time, the Apex Court recently in the case of Navneesh Aggarwal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 963 has held that the family members of husband should not be roped unnecessarily and face vexatious criminal trial.

¶27

Recently also, the Apex Court in the case of Mange Ram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.10817 of 2024) , in paragraph nos. 25, 31 and 32 has reiterated that in cases, particularly, related to dowry, opportunity be given to the parties first to reconcile,

¶28

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.100 of 2025(3) dt.31-10-2025 4/5

¶29

which inter alia are as follows:-

¶30

“25. This Court, in Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735, has made it clear that family members of the husband ought not to be unnecessarily roped into criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord. The Court observed that it has become a recurring tendency to implicate every member of the husband’s family, irrespective of their role or actual involvement, merely because a dispute has arisen between the spouses. It was further held that where the allegations are bereft of specific particulars, and particularly where the relatives sought to be prosecuted are residing separately or have had no connection with the matrimonial home, allowing the prosecution to proceed would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Court noted that criminal law is not to be deployed as an instrument of harassment, and that judicial scrutiny must be exercised to guard against such misuse.

¶31

31. We also refer to Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 wherein this Court observed that where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled, although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. In this regard, a specific reference was made to offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or a family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim but the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable. The High Court may, within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.

¶32

32. In Naushey Ali vs. State of U.P., (2025) 4 SCC 78, one of us (Viswanathan, J.) observed in paragraph 32 that proceeding with the trial, when the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, would be futile and the ends of justice require that the settlement be given effect to by quashing the proceedings. It would be a grave abuse of process particularly when the dispute is settled and resolved.”

¶33

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.100 of 2025(3) dt.31-10-2025 5/5

¶34

From perusal of the complaint, it is evident that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner no. 1, petitioner no.2, petitioner no.3 and petitioner no.4, who are married Nanad, mother-in-law, Dewar and father-in-law of the complainant respectively and allegation against them is general and omnibus.

¶35

I find that no case under Sections 498 A/504 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act is made out against the petitioners. Accordingly, the entire proceedings and order taking cognizance dated 08.05.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Saran is hereby set aside and quashed with respect to these petitioners.

¶36

Accordingly, the present quashing application stands disposed of.

¶37

(Purnendu Singh, J)

¶38

Sanjay/-

Nitu Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitu Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankar Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Jayesh Sinha @ Jayesh @ Jaish Sinha Vs The State of Bihar

Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kumar Thakur @ Vijay Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Rajeshwar Prasad Singh @ Rajeshwar Prasad Sinha Vs the State of Bihar

Saurav Kumar Vs Rajani Kumari

Raushan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar