Patna High Court – Orders
Amriti Devi @ Amrita Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 30 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86351 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1229 Year-2019 Thana- DARBHANGA COMPLAINT CASE
District- Darbhanga
======================================================
1. Amriti Devi @ Amrita Devi W/O Ganaur Ram (Mother-In-Law) R/O
Village- Vidya Jhap, Ps. Sakra, Dist. Muzaffarpur (Wrongly Mentioned As
Darbhanga).
2. Kanika Devi @ Kanika Kumari W/O Shashi Bhushan Kumar (Nanad) R/O
Village- Vidya Jhap, Ps. Sakra, Dist. Muzaffarpur (Wrongly Mentioned As
Darbhanga).
3. Ganaur Ram S/O Late Nanhu Ram (Father-In-Law) R/O Village- Vidya
Jhap, Ps. Sakra, Dist. Muzaffarpur (Wrongly Mentioned As Darbhanga).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bharti Kumari W/O Navin Kumar Mohalla- Lakshmi Sagar, J.P. Chowk
Colony, Ps. Lnmu, Dist. Darbhanga.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhavesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
4 30-03-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Notice has been served personally by the
complainant /opposite party no. 2. the same constitutes valid
service.
3. The present application has been filed by the
petitioners invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court
for quashing of the order dated 05.11.2019 passed by Judicial
Magistrate, Second Class, Darbhanga in Complaint Case No.
1229 of 2019 (Misc. No. 25/2019) against the petitioners u/s
341, 342, 323, 498(A), 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s
3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86351 of 2023(4) dt.30-03-2026
2/6
4. The prosecution case is that the complainant alleges
that her marriage has been solemnized with son of the petitioner
nos. 1 and 3 in the year 2016 and after marriage she started to
live with in the matrimonial house. She further alleged that she
was tortured by her in-laws for demand of Rs. 13,00,000/- as
dowry.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that with
regard to petitioner nos. 1 and 3, they are mother-in-law and
father-in-law of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 whereas
petitioner no. 2 is married Nanad of the complainant/opposite
party no. 2. They live separately and have no connection with
day to day life of the complainant. He further relies upon the
observation given by by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [2023 SCC
Online SC 1083] and submitted that the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and
3 were implicated only of their relations with husband of O.P.
No. 2.
“(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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86351 of 2023(4) dt.30-03-2026
3/6
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,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86351 of 2023(4) dt.30-03-2026
4/6
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86351 of 2023(4) dt.30-03-2026
5/6
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.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86351 of 2023(4) dt.30-03-2026
6/6
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.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently
opposed the prayer.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, moreover, the petitioner no. 1, 2 and 3 being in-laws
and they are living a separate life and having nothing to do with
the day to day life of the complainant/opposite party no. 2, the
order dated 11.02.2020 passed by 05.11.2019 passed by Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Darbhanga in Complaint Case No. 1229 of
2019 (Misc. No. 25/2019) is hereby quashed with regard to
petitioners only.
8. Accordingly, the application stands allowed.
(Ansul, J)
Ranjeet/-
U T
