Dismissed¶¶41

Supriya Rani v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC28 Jul 2025CR. MISC./46084/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing application dismissed; non-summoning of O.P. Nos. 2 to 6 in Complaint Case No. 1188 of 2020 (Gaya) upheld; allegations against them vague, general and omnibus; Section 498A IPC; State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 relied on; order dated 02.11.2021 of Addl. Sessions Judge, Gaya affirmed by refusal of interference; dowry demand of Rs. 25,00,000 alleged.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the complaint petition and the documents brought by the complainant with regard to payment made to the husband, no specific allegation was found levelled against O.P. Nos. 2 to 6. ¶¶25

Supriya Rani Vs the State of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the quashing application challenging the order dated 02.11.2021 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st, Gaya (passed in revision against the order dated 20.03.2021 of the J.M.-1st Class, Gaya in Complaint Case No. 1188 of 2020, whereby summons were not issued against O.P. Nos. 2 to 6) should be allowed. +1 more

¶¶19

Court's answer

Considering the materials available on record and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (Supra), the Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the quashing application.

¶¶41

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the complaint petition and the documents brought by the complainant with regard to payment made to the husband, no specific allegation was found levelled against O.P. Nos. 2 to 6.

¶¶25

Key takeaways

Neither the statements of the witnesses examined in the complaint case nor the solemn affirmation of the complainant alleged anything specific against O.P. Nos. 2 to 6, and in view of the same the learned court below had rejected the prayer of the complainant to issue summons against them.ratio¶¶27
It is settled law that where the allegations, especially in a case under Section 498A of the I.P.C., are vague, general and omnibus with nothing specific against the accused, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (categories in para 102) apply.ratio¶¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Sourendra Pandey, J) dismissed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 46084 of 2023 by which the petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 02.11.2021 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st, Gaya, passed in her revision against the order dated 20.03.2021 of the J.M.-1st Class, Gaya in Complaint Case No. 1188 of 2020 declining to issue summons against opposite party nos. 2 to 6. Perusing the complaint petition, the documents on payment to the husband, the witness statements and the complainant's solemn affirmation, the Court found no specific allegation against O.P. Nos. 2 to 6 and held that, in a Section 498A IPC matter, vague, general and omnibus allegations attract the principles in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (para 102 categories). On that basis the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the application.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46084 of 2023

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1188 Year-2020 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGaya

¶3

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

¶4

Supriya Rani W/O Birendra Kumar Singh, D/O Ashok Prasad R/O VillagePasewa, Ps. Imamganj, Dist. Gaya. At Present Village- Kamalpur Ps. Muffasil, Dist. Gaya

¶5

... ... Petitioner/S

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Dhirendra Kumar Singh S/O Mahesh Prasad Singh R/O Mohalla Bslls Street No. 8 Quarter No. 5b, Ps. Bokaro City, Dist. Bokaro (JHARKHAND)

¶9

Kumari Sanjeeta W/O Chandan Kumar R/O Village- Taradih, Ps. Madanpur Dist. Aurangabad (BIHAR)

¶10

Chandan Kumar S/O Yadu Mahto R/O Village- Taradih, Ps. Madanpur Dist. Aurangabad (BIHAR)

¶11

Kumari Ranjita W/O Ravi Ranjan R/O Mohalla- Dandibag Gali No. 4 Ps. Vishnupad, Dist. Gaya

¶12

Ravi Ranjan S/O Dukheshwar Mahto R/O Mohalla- Dandibag Gali No. 4 Ps. Vishnupad, Dist. Gaya

¶13

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶14

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

¶15

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Adv For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP ======================================================

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶17

2 28-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶18

APP for the State.

¶19

2. The present application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 02.11.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1^st , Gaya, whereby a revision was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.03.2021 passed by J.M.-1^st Class, Gaya, in Complaint Case No. 1188 of 2020 whereby summons were not issued against O.P Nos. 2 to

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46084 of 2023(2) dt.28-07-2025 2/5

¶21

¶22

3. As per the prosecution case, the accused persons are alleged to have tortured the complainant mentally and physically due to non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 25,00,000/as dowry.

¶23

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is bad in law and despite the allegations levelled against the accused persons, the O.P. Nos. 2 to 6 were not summoned. Learned counsel next submits that from perusal of the complaint case it would be evident that there is an allegation against the O.P. Nos. 2 to 6 wherein it is stated that they have also been torturing the complainant/petitioner and, hence, non-summoning the opposite parties has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

¶24

5. Learned APP for the state has also supported the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

6. Having perused the complaint petition as well as the documents which were brought by the complainant with regard to the payment made to the husband, it is evident that there is no specific allegations levelled against the O.P. Nos. 2 to 6. It is further observed that the learned Court below had taken note of the entire statement of the witnesses who were examined

¶26

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46084 of 2023(2) dt.28-07-2025 3/5

¶27

in the complaint case and despite such statements being made, there was nothing specific alleged against the O.P. Nos. 2 to 6. This Court had also taken note of the fact that in the solemn affirmation made by the complainant/petitioner, she has also not alleged anything specific against the O.P. Nos. 2 to 6 and in view of the same, the learned Court below had rejected the prayer of the complainant to issue summons against the O.P. Nos. 2 to 6.

¶28

8. It is a settled law that if the allegations especially in a case under Section 498 A of the I.P.C. are vague and general and omnibus and there is nothing specific against them as stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. For better appreciation it would be apposite to reproduce para 102 of the aforesaid case which read as follows:-

¶29

‘102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary 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

¶30

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46084 of 2023(2) dt.28-07-2025 4/5

¶31

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 power should be exercised.

¶32

(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.

¶33

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report 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) of the Code.

¶34

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶35

(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 officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶36

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of

¶37

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46084 of 2023(2) dt.28-07-2025 5/5

¶38

which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶39

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶40

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

¶41

9. Considering the materials available on record and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (Supra) this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order impugned. Accordingly, the present quashing application stands dismissed.

¶42

(Sourendra Pandey, J)

¶43

Jyoti/-

¶44

U T

Supriya Rani v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Supriya Rani v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitish Ray Vs The State of Bihar

Manoj Mahto @ Rakesh Mahto @ Rajeev Ranjan Vs The State of Bihar

Ajay Kumar @ Golu Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Madhurendra Vs The State of Bihar

Prabhat Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Meera Singh Vs The State of Bihar