Patna High Court – Orders
Gulab Jharo Devi And Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 3 August, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37762 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2016 Thana- SAHAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
1. Gulab Jharo Devi and Anr W/o Sri Singh @ Sri Yadav
2. Sri Singh @ Sri Yadav Son of Late Sital Singh Both Residents of Village-
Ekwari, P.S. Sahar, District- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Amish Kumar No.1, Advocate
Mr. Ishaan Raj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandrasen Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
9 03-08-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the State.
2. None appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.
From the order sheet, it appears that on 04.02.2016 also none
appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.
3. The petitioners have filed this application for
quashing the order dated 06.01.2021 passed by learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-10th, Bhojpur at Ara, in
connection with Sahar P.S. Case No. 56 of 2016 (G.R. No.
3254/2016 & Tr. No. 1071/2016), whereby and whereunder,
cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under
Sections 494, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37762 of 2018(9) dt.03-08-2026
2/4
4. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners along
with other co-accused persons are said to have tortured the
informant as regards the non-fulfillment of dowry and also
ousted her from her matrimonial home over demand of dowry. It
has further been alleged that the informant got an information
that her husband, namely, Jeetendra Singh, has contracted
second marriage.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that the petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law
respectively of Opposite Party No.2. The Court below passed
the impugned order taking cognizance without application of
judicial mind and took cognizance against all the accused
persons including the petitioners. It has further been submitted
that there are general and omnibus allegation against the
petitioners, while the allegation of not providing milk to the
child of the informant as well as the assault has specifically
been made against petitioner no.2 (Sri Singh @ Sri Yadav). It
has further been submitted that the present case was lodged only
after the informant got an information that her husband has
contracted second marriage, when the marriage of the informant
with her husband co-accused, Jeetendra Singh took place about
twenty years ago and during the intervening period of twenty
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37762 of 2018(9) dt.03-08-2026
3/4
years, no complaint whatsoever was lodged against any of the
petitioners.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr
reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, in the case of Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2022) 6 SCC
599, and in the case of Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana &
Anr. reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 759. Learned counsel for
the petitioners has further placed reliance upon a judgment of a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 03.02.2026 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 35774 of 2021 (Sajjan Pandey @ Vishnu Pandey @
Vishnu Kumar Pandey and Others vs. The State of Bihar &
Another) and has submitted that this order has dealt with all the
aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and has,
thus, submitted that this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court
have deprecated the practice of falsely implicating the relatives
of the husband in a matrimonial dispute. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has further submitted that the allegation against the
petitioners are malicious, vexatious and has purposely been
levelled to spite personal score. It has further been submitted
that from the plain reading of FIR itself, it is clear that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37762 of 2018(9) dt.03-08-2026
4/4
petitioners reside separately with the husband of the informant.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer of
the petitioners.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances and the
fact that the petitioners are not directly involved in the demand
of dowry and there is general and omnibus allegation against
them as well as the specific allegation of not providing milk to
the child of the informant has been levelled after twenty years of
the marriage, when there is an allegation that the husband has
contracted second marriage, the order dated 16.08.2016 passed
by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-10th, Bhojpur at
Ara and all consequential proceeding arising out of Sahar P.S.
Case No. 56 of 2016 is hereby quashed against the petitioners
only. However, the prosecution with respect to the co-accused
persons except the petitioners may continue.
8. This application stands allowed.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Shivam/-
U T
