Allowed¶28

Rekha Mishra v. The State of Bihar

Quashing of cognizance – S.528 BNSS

Patna HC23 Jun 2026CR. MISC./85396/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS quashing; cognizance order 14.09.2020 SDJM Munger quashed; Kasim Bazar P.S. Case No. 160/2020; 498A, 341, 323, 379, 34 IPC; Sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act; nanad and nandoi; general and omnibus allegations; separate residence since 1998; 17 km from matrimonial home; FIR 13 years after marriage, 4 days after husband's death; Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) INSC 779; Cr. Misc. No. 16948 of 2023 and Cr. Misc. No. 19092 of 2023 (05.02.2026); abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; the cognizance order dated 14.09.2020 passed by the SDJM, Munger in Kasim Bazar P.S. Case No. 160 of 2020 and all proceedings arising therefrom quashed insofar as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned. ¶28

Rekha Mishra Vs The State of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the cognizance order dated 14.09.2020 passed by the SDJM, Munger in Kasim Bazar P.S. Case No. 160 of 2020, taking cognizance under Sections 341, 323, 379, 498A/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, should be quashed insofar as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 (the nanad and nandoi of the informant) are concerned, on the ground that the allegations are general and omnibus.

¶16

Court's answer

The allegations against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in the FIR and charge sheet are entirely general and omnibus, bereft of any specific act attributed to either of them with reference to date, time or circumstance, and the bald assertions (nanad of questionable character, womanising) do not constitute any ingredient of the offences alleged.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

It is an admitted situation that the petitioners have resided separately at Patna City, approximately 17 kilometres from the matrimonial home, had not visited it since 1998, and maintain a separate mess and household; no specific dowry demand, individual act of assault, or particular date of harassment is attributed to them anywhere in the FIR or the charge sheet.

¶23

Key takeaways

The FIR was lodged thirteen years after the 2007 marriage and merely four days after the husband's death on 27.04.2020, without any explanation for the informant's silence during his lifetime.ratio¶25
Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) INSC 779, general and omnibus allegations which do not spell out individual culpability with particularity cannot be permitted to drag accused persons through the rigours of criminal trial; the present petitioners' position is even more remote than the accused in the coordinate-Bench quashing of 05.02.2026.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of cognizance - S.528 BNSS - Patna High Court allowed the petition and quashed the cognizance order dated 14.09.2020 of the SDJM, Munger in Kasim Bazar P.S. Case No. 160 of 2020 (Sections 341, 323, 379, 498A/34 IPC; Sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961) insofar as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, the nanad and nandoi of the informant, were concerned. Held: allegations in FIR and charge sheet No. 177/2020 were entirely general and omnibus, with no specific act, date, dowry demand or instance of assault attributed to the petitioners; the bald assertions of questionable character and womanising made out no ingredient of the offences. Petitioners admittedly resided at Patna City, about 17 km from the matrimonial home, had not visited it since 1998, and kept a separate mess; the FIR came 13 years after the 2007 marriage and 4 days after the husband's death, with no explanation for the delay. Relying on Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) INSC 779, and a coordinate-Bench quashing dated 05.02.2026 in Cr. Misc. Nos. 16948 and 19092 of 2023 arising from the same FIR, continuance of prosecution was held to be an abuse of process.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85396 of 2023

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-160 Year-2020 Thana- KASIMBAZAR District- Munger

¶3

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

¶4

Rekha Mishra Wife of Sanjeev Mishra Resident of Mohalla Kali Sthan V.D. Mishra Road, Patna City, P.S. Chowk, District Patna.

¶5

Sanjeev Mishra, Son of Lakshman Ji Mishra @ Lakshman Mishra, Resident of Mohalla Kali Sthan V.D. Mishra Road, Patna City, P.S. Chowk, District Patna.

¶6

... ... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar Bihar.

¶9

Kumari Arunima Wife of Arun Kumar Mishra and Daughter of Surendra Chandra Pathk, Resident of Village Puraniganj, Jamalpur Road, P.s. Kashim Bazar, P.O. Munger, P.s Munger, District Munger.

¶10

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶11

=================== Appearance :	===================================
For the Petitioner/s :	Mr.Nikhil Kumar Agarwal, Advocate Mr.Aditi Hansaria, Advocate Mr.Keshav Bharadwaj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : For the Informant : ===================	Mr.Chandra Sen Prasad Singh,APP Mr.Rajesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate ===================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL ORAL JUDGMENT

¶13

Date : 23-06-2026

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶15

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶16

2. This application has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) read with the corresponding saving provisions, seeking quashing of the cognizance order dated 14.09.2020 passed by the learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger in Kasim Bazar P.S. Case No. 160 of 2020, whereby cognizance was taken under Sections 341, 323, 379, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85396 of 2023 dt.23-06-2026 2/5

¶18

and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioners and others.

¶19

3. The petitioners are the nanad (sister-in-law) and nandoi (husband of the sister-in-law) of the informant, Opposite Party No. 2. Petitioner No. 1, Rekha Mishra, is a practicing Advocate at the Civil Court, Patna City since 1990, and petitioner No. 2, Sanjeev Mishra, is her husband. The records would show that both petitioners have been residing at Mohalla Kali Sthan, V.D. Mishra Road, Patna City, which admittedly is approximately 17 kilometres away from the matrimonial home of the informant. It has come out in the petition, and is an admitted situation, that the petitioners had not visited the matrimonial home of the informant since as far back as 1998. They maintain an entirely separate mess and household. The FIR itself records that after certain family interventions, the nanad and nandoi left and were residing on rent nearby, though it is stated they continued visiting. The prosecution story, taken at its face value, thus concedes the fact of separate living.

¶20

4. The informant's written report dated 01.05.2020, which forms the basis of Kasim Bazar P.S. Case No. 160 of 2020 registered on 22.06.2020, alleges that after her marriage on 06.05.2007 with Arun Kumar Mishra, her in-laws, including the

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85396 of 2023 dt.23-06-2026 3/5

¶22

petitioners herein, subjected her to torture and cruelty in various ways. The allegations against the petitioners in the FIR and the charge sheet are that the nanad and nandoi engaged in womanising, that the nanad was like a call girl, and that they aided and abetted in the general atmosphere of harassment. The husband of the informant died on 27.04.2020, and the written report was lodged a mere four days thereafter. The charge sheet bearing No. 177/2020 dated 31.07.2020 was submitted against eight accused persons including the petitioners.

¶23

5. The records would show that the allegations against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are entirely general and omnibus in character, bereft of any specific act attributed to either of them with reference to date, time or circumstance. The nanad and nandoi are sought to be roped in on the strength of bald, sweeping and morally coloured assertions, such as the nanad being of questionable character and the two of them engaging in womanising, which do not constitute any ingredient of the offences alleged and are plainly absurd. It is an admitted situation that the petitioners have been residing separately, at Patna City, approximately 17 kilometres from the matrimonial home, and had not visited that home since 1998, a circumstance that appears from the prosecution's own case. No specific demand of dowry, no

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85396 of 2023 dt.23-06-2026 4/5

¶25

individual act of assault, no particular date of harassment is attributed to the petitioners anywhere in the FIR or the charge sheet. The informant was married in 2007 and the FIR was lodged in 2020, thirteen years later, merely four days after her husband's death, without any explanation for the silence during his lifetime. The law on this aspect is well settled. In Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [(2023) INSC 779] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a factually similar situation where the brotherin-law of the informant was residing separately and no specific role was attributed to him, quashed the proceedings, holding that general and omnibus allegations, which do not spell out individual culpability with particularity, cannot be permitted to drag accused through the rigours of criminal trial. Sister of High Court in Cr. Misc. No. 16948 of 2023 and Cr. Misc. No. 19092 of 2023, arising from the very same FIR involving the remaining accused, has by a considered judgment dated 05.02.2026 quashed the cognizance order after noting that the allegations are general and omnibus, that the FIR does not mention specific dates or time periods, that the petitioners therein lived separately, and that the prosecution appears to have been set in motion for extraneous reasons. The situation of the present petitioners is, if anything, more remote, they having not visited the matrimonial home for over two

¶26

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85396 of 2023 dt.23-06-2026 5/5

¶27

decades. Allowing the prosecution to continue in these circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of this Court.

¶28

6. In the result, this application is allowed. The cognizance order dated 14.09.2020 passed by the learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger in Kasim Bazar P.S. Case No. 160 of 2020 and all proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed insofar as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned.

¶29

7. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.

¶30

(Ansul, J)

¶31

abhishekkr/-

¶32

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	25.06.2026
Transmission Date	25.06.2026

Rekha Mishra v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rekha Mishra 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

Qumrul Hoda @ Quamrul Hoda Vs The State of Bihar

Kundan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rupa Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Amar Nath @ Rana Shankar Vakil @ Ram Shankar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Sandeep Kumar Gupta @ Sandeep Prasad @ Sandeep Prasad Sao Vs the State of Bihar

Gopesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar