Patna High Court
Manoj Kumar And Ors vs The State Of Bihar And Anr on 27 July, 2026
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2368 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-607 Year-2018 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
1. Manoj Kumar, S/o Ram Keshwar Ram, resident of house no. MIG- 325,
Near Sanjay Gandhi Girls High School Kankerbagh Colony, P.S.-
Kankerbagh, Patna- 800020, District- Patna.
2. Thakur Muneshwar Choudhary, S/o Ram Keshwar Ram, resident of house
no. MIG- 325, Near Sanjay Gandhi Girls High School Kankerbagh Colony,
P.S.- Kankerbagh, Patna- 800020, District- Patna.
3. Ram Keshwar Ram, S/o Late Harku Choudhary, resident of house no. MIG-
325, Near Sanjay Gandhi Girls High School Kankerbagh Colony, P.S.-
Kankerbagh, Patna- 800020, District- Patna.
4. Samuni Devi, W/o Ram Keshwar Ram, resident of house no. MIG- 325,
Near Sanjay Gandhi Girls High School Kankerbagh Colony, P.S.-
Kankerbagh, Patna- 800020, District- Patna.
5. Aparna @ Aparna Choudhary, W/o Thakur Muneshwar Choudhary, resident
of house no. MIG- 325, Near Sanjay Gandhi Girls High School Kankerbagh
Colony, P.S.- Kankerbagh, Patna- 800020, District- Patna.
6. Chitra @ Chitra Kumari, D/o Thakur Muneshwar Choudhary, resident of
house no. MIG- 325, Near Sanjay Gandhi Girls High School Kankerbagh
Colony, P.S.- Kankerbagh, Patna- 800020, District- Patna.
7. Dr. Anil Kumar S/o Rameshwar Choudhary, resident of Mohalla- Dighi Kala
Purbi, Hajipur, P.S.- Hajipur, District- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Priyanka @ Priyanka Devi, Surendra Choudhary and Wife of Manoj Kumar
resident of House No. 644/800, Mohalla- Lal Bahadur Shastri Nagar, Patna,
P.S.- Sashtri Nagar, Patna- 800023, District- Patna.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-07-2026
1. Heard the parties.
2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2368 of 2019 dt.27-07-2026
2/13
the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition of
petitioner no.1, namely, Manoj Kumar, who is the husband
of OP no.2.
3. Considering the submissions, the present
petition qua petitioner no.1, namely, Manoj Kumar stands
dismissed as withdrawn.
4. Now, this petition remains survive only
against the petitioner no.2, 5, 6 and 7, as petition of
petitioner no.3 and 4, was already becomes infructuous in
terms of order dated 20.07.2026.
5. This application is being filed on behalf of the
above-named petitioners against the order dated
13.08.2018
as passed in a Complaint Case No. 607C/2018
by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna
whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has taken
cognizance against all the petitioners for the offence alleged
u/s 498A, 354 of Indian Panel Code and Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.
6. All the petitioners are family member of the
same family except petitioner no. 7, who is the son-in-law of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2368 of 2019 dt.27-07-2026
3/13
the family and a Doctor/medical practitioner at Hajipur
township. It is further stated that the petitioner no. 1 is
husband, petitioner no. 2 is elder brother-in-law (Bhaisur) of
the complainant lady (Priyanka Devi), petitioner no. 3 and 4
are very old persons as aged above 70 years and father-in-
law and mother-in-law of the complainant and petitioner 5, 6
& 7 are sister-in-laws (jethani), unmarried niece and
brother-in-law (Nandosi) respectively of Priyanka Devi, the
complainant lady/ OP no.2.
7. As per complaint, allegation in brief is that
father of the complainant met with Ram Keshwar Ram for
marriage of his second son Manoj Kumar, Employee of
United Bank of India and talked for dowry free marriage but
in course of talk he demanded huge amount and taken Rs.
15,00,000/- in his account. It is, alleged that marriage of
the complainant with petitioner Manoj Kumar was solemnized
on 26.11.2015 according to Hindu rites and rituals at
Shastrinagar, Patna on the residence of the complainant. It
is further alleged that the father of the complainant
expended Rs. 5 lacs on ornament, cloth and utensils and Rs.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2368 of 2019 dt.27-07-2026
4/13
5 lacs on other expenditure and in total he expended about
Rs. 25,00,000/-. The complainant has alleged that she
stayed in sasural for few days and then went to Siliguri at
the posting place of her husband, on 12.12.2015 and in the
meantime she became pregnant. It is alleged that during
holidays her husband brought her to matrimonial home,
where her mother-in-law, father-in-law and nandosi started
torturing by saying that she was not a suitable match for
their son and her husband (petitioner) was also supporting
them. He went back to Siliguri saying the parent of the
complainant to take her to maike, then on next day her
maike people took her to maike. It is alleged that in April
2016 her husband called her to Siliguri, she went there with
her brother where her husband started torturing with her
and pressed for abortion. It is alleged that she remained
there for three months and in August 2016 her husband was
transferred to Marufganj, Patna City then her husband
brought her again to her matrimonial home at Kankarbagh,
Patna, where all the accused persons again started her
torturing, cruelty, abuse and assaulted her. She has alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2368 of 2019 dt.27-07-2026
5/13
that she gave birth of female child in Manas Nursing Home,
Kankarbagh on 10.09.2016 but her in-law abused and went
away leaving her alone and in night sent driver, who brought
her at matrimonial home on the condition that she would not
have any relation with her parent. They also provoked her
for suicide all time. It is alleged that on 23.09.2016 her
husband and other in-laws assaulted her, then she informed
her family members. It is alleged that on 05.06.2017 her
husband took her to Kolkata on pretext of tour and tried to
kill her by pushing from train. It is further alleged that
husband of the complainant assaulted her by saying that due
to her, his family has been ruined and stopped giving cloths
etc. to her and in the month of September 2017 her
husband sent to her naiher when she was pregnant for
second time. The complainant has alleged that thereafter she
went to her matrimonial home, many times but in-laws did
not allow her to enter in the matrimonial home. She has
further alleged that on 28.12.2017 she went to office of her
husband but there also her husband denied to met her and
also abused her. She has alleged that she has given written
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2368 of 2019 dt.27-07-2026
6/13
information to Mahila Helpline on 15.01.2018 but no step
was taken whereafter only she filed the instant complaint
case.
8. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner that all four petitioners are in-laws and
living separately having no connections with daily and
domestic affairs with OP no.2 and her husband namely,
Manoj Kumar, petitioner no.1. It is further submitted that
the petitioner no.2, namely, Thakur Muneshwar Choudhary is
the elder brother of the husband of OP no.2, who is working
in Delhi and living at Asansol, West Bengal. It is pointed out
that petitioner no.5, namely, Aparna @ Aparna Choudhary,
who is the wife of petitioner no.2 and petitioner no.6,
namely, Chitra @ Chitra Kumari is the daughter of petitioner
no.2 and 5. It is also submitted that petitioner no.7, namely,
Dr. Anil Kumar, is brother-in-law of the husband of OP no.2,
who is a doctor and residing separately at Hajipur, Vaishali,
Bihar. It is further submitted that due to oblique motive and
with harassing attitude, all these in-laws were implicated
through present criminal complaint without having any
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2368 of 2019 dt.27-07-2026
7/13
cogent material. It is further submitted that in view of
allegation which is very much general and omnibus against
these petitioners, the impugned order of cognizance dated
13.08.2018 against petitioner is fit to be quashed/set aside
in view of legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available
through Abhishek versus State of Madhya Pradesh
[2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083].
9. Despite service of notice, non appeared on
behalf of OP no.2.
10. It would be apposite to reproduce the para
no. 12 to 17 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Abhishek Case (supra), which reads as under:-
“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 3Judge Bench of this Court
elaborately considered the scope and extent
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2368 of 2019 dt.27-07-2026
8/13of 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 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.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2368 of 2019 dt.27-07-2026
9/13husband 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.
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.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2368 of 2019 dt.27-07-2026
10/13and 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.
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 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.
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:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2368 of 2019 dt.27-07-2026
11/13‘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.
(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) 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.
(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.
(4) Where, the allegations in
the FIR do not constitute a cognizable
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2368 of 2019 dt.27-07-2026
12/13offence 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.
(5) Where the allegations
made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd
and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
(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.
(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.”
11. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and
by taking note of fact as the above-named petitioner no.2,
5, 6 and 7 are in-laws and living separately having no
connections with daily and domestic affairs with OP no.2 and
her husband, namely, Manoj Kumar, facing general and
omnibus allegation qua cruelty, accordingly, taking a guiding
note of Abhishek Case (supra), the impugned order dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2368 of 2019 dt.27-07-2026
13/13
13.08.2018 is hereby quashed/set aside qua all above-
named four petitioners no. 2, 5, 6 and 7 with all its
consequential proceedings.
12. Accordingly, the present petition stands
allowed.
13. Let the copy of judgment be communicated
to the learned trial court forthwith, with TCR, if any.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Raushan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 28.07.2026 Transmission Date 28.07.2026
