Allowed

Manju Devi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC1 Jul 2025CR. MISC./53785/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, cousin in-laws of a complainant's husband facing dowry-harassment charges, sought quashing of the cognizance order. Relying on the Abhishek decision on omnibus 498A allegations against relatives, the High Court found their implication prima facie merely as husband's relatives and quashed the cognizance qua petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Cognizance order dated 09.01.2023 and all consequential proceedings qua the four petitioners were quashed.

Manju Devi Vs The State of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53785 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Siwan

¶3

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

¶4

Manju Devi wife of Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Village- Basdila Ps- Jalalpur Dist- Saran at Chapra

¶5

Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh son of Late Phulena Prasad Village- Basdila PsJalalpur Dist- Saran at Chapra

¶6

Urmila Devi wife of Ravindra Prasad Yadav @ Ravindra Yadav VillageBasdila Ps- Jalalpur Dist- Saran at Chapra

¶7

Ravindra Prasad Yadav @ Ravindra yadav son of Late Devat Prasad @ Devant Prasad Village- Basdila Ps- Jalalpur Dist- Saran at Chapra

¶8

... ... Petitioner/s

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Bihar

¶11

Mrs. Shivastika D/o- Sri Shivnarayan Yadav Village- Bhar Ke Mathiya PoTarwa Pusta Ps- MH Nagar Dist- Siwan

¶12

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶13

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

¶14

Appearance :

¶15

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Shrivastava For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan

¶16

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

¶17

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT

¶18

Date : 01-07-2025

¶19

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of

¶20

the parties.

¶21

2. Present petition is being filed by the

¶22

petitioners for quashing the cognizance order dated 09.01.2023 under Sections 341, 323, 498 (A) and 34 of

¶23

the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against petitioners in connection with Siwan Mahila P.S case no. 34 of 2021 by the learned S.D.J.M, Siwan.

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53785 of 2024 dt.01-07-2025 2/8

¶25

3. That the prosecution story in short is that the O.P. No. 2 solemnized marriage with one Prabhat Kumar, S/o late Phulena Prasad on 7.12.2015 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. After some time of marriage the husband of O.P. No. 2 demanded vehicle and money and after being refused her husband namely, Prabhat Kumar assaulted her, resulting fracture of her wrist and finally took the child in his custody.

¶26

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing

¶27

for the petitioner that the allegation appears very much general and omnibus against petitioners who are cousin in-laws. It is submitted that admittedly petitioners are working with district hospital and living separately having no connection with daily and domestic affairs of O.P. No. 2 and her husband. It is pointed out that husband of O.P.

¶28

No. 2 is serving in bank and presently posted at Goa. It is submitted that dispute arising out of ancestral home partition issue, where the petitioners being cousin in-laws were implicated falsely with present case. It is further

¶29

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53785 of 2024 dt.01-07-2025 3/8

¶30

submitted that O.P. No. 2 is working as teacher in government school and currently living at Chapra.

¶31

5. In support of his submission learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as

¶32

available through Abhishek vs. State of Madhya

¶33

Pradesh as reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083.

¶34

6. Learned APP appearing for the State pointed out that petitioners being cousin in-laws are residing in

¶35

same house and actively participated in the occurrence.

¶36

7. It would be further apposite to reproduce

¶37

paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 14 ,15, 16 & 17 of Abhishek Case

¶38

(supra) , which read as:-

¶39

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 the complaint. In Neeharika Infrastructure (P). Ltd. v. State of 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

¶40

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53785 of 2024 dt.01-07-2025 4/8

¶41

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 the allegations made therein, but if the Court thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-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 quash the FIR/complaint.

¶42

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. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation where the High Court had refused 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 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.

¶43

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53785 of 2024 dt.01-07-2025 5/8

¶44

14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 SCC 667], this Court noted that the tendency to implicate the husband and all his immediate relations is also 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.

¶45

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, is not the ‘be all and end all’ of the matter, as what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in the commission of that offence. These observations were made in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving Section 498A IPC.

¶46

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, 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

¶47

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53785 of 2024 dt.01-07-2025 6/8

¶48

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.

¶49

17. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court had set out, by way of illustration, the broad categories of cases in which the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised. Para 102 of the decision reads as follows:

¶50

“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 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.

¶51

(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.

¶52

(2) Where the allegations in the first informant 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.

¶53

(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.

¶54

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not

¶55

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53785 of 2024 dt.01-07-2025 7/8

¶56

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.

¶57

(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 against the accused.

¶58

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (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 concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶59

(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.”

¶60

8. In view of aforesaid as petitioners are cousin in-

¶61

laws of the husband of O.P. No. 2 and currently living separately having no connections with daily and domestic affairs of O.P. No. 2 and her husband therefore prima-facie implication of petitioners appears only being relative of the husband of O.P. No. 2, hence therefore taking a guiding note

¶62

of Abhishek case (supra), the impugned order of cognizance dated 09.01.2023 passed by learned S.D.J.M, Siwan in Siwan Mahila P.S case no. 34 of 2021 qua abovenamed petitioners is hereby quashed/set aside, with all its

¶63

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53785 of 2024 dt.01-07-2025 8/8

¶64

consequential proceedings.

¶65

9. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.

¶66

10. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the

¶67

learned trial court forthwith.

¶68

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)

¶69

Sudha/-

¶70

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	02.07.2025
Transmission Date	02.07.2025

Manju Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhinay Kumar @ Bablu Vs The State of Bihar

Arvind Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Master Vs The State of Bihar

Shri. Subechandra Rajbhar @ S Rajbhar Vs The State of Bihar through tis Secretary, Home Department

Alok Ranjan Sahay @ Alok Kumar Sahay @ Bittu Vs The State of Bihar

Aparna Kumari Vs The State of Bihar