Patna High Court – Orders
Pintu Tiwary And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 28 April, 2026
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2885 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-162 Year-2010 Thana- BARAULI District- Gopalganj
======================================================
1. Pintu Tiwary, S/o Prabhunath Tiwary
2. Bhagmani Devi, W/o Prabhunath Tiwary
3. Satish Tiwary, S/o Prabhunath Tiwary. All are residents of Village-
Basantpur Mathia, P.O. Basantpur, Police Station- Basantpur, District Siwan.
4. Suman Tiwary, S/o Prabhunath Tiwary
5. Usha Devi, Wife of Suman Tiwary, Resident of Mohalla- Gandhi Maidan,
Siwan, Police Station - Town Thana, District Siwan.
6. Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjeev Tiwary, S/o Prabhunath Tiwary
7. Puja Devi, W/o Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjeev Tiwary, Resident of Mohalla-
Bank More, Rangatard, Police Station- Bank More, District Dhanbad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pinki Devi, W/o Pintu Tiwary, D/o Surendra Upadhyay, Resident of Village-
Basantpur Mathia, Police Station- Basantpur, District Siwan at Present
residing at Village- Dewapur, Police Station- Baraul, District Gopalganj.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
8 28-04-2026
Vide order dated 06.04.2026, the application with
respect to petitioner no.1, namely, Pintu Tiwary, was dismissed
as not pressed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner nos.2 to 7
as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and
learned APP for the State.
3. The present application has been filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2885 of 2018(8) dt.28-04-2026
2/12
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) for setting aside the order
date 07.06.2014 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Gopalganj (hereinafter referred to as ‘Magistrate’)
in connection with Tr. No.1714 of 2017 arising out of Barauli
P.S. Case No.162 of 2010, wherein the learned Magistrate took
cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 504
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against all
the accused persons.
4. Brief facts of the case, as emerging from the
complaint, are that the opposite party no.2, who is the legally
wedded wife of petitioner no.1, alleged that her marriage was
solemnized on 09.06.2002 in accordance with Hindu rites and
rituals and at the time of marriage, her family had given cash,
ornaments, clothes and other articles as per their capacity. It is
alleged that after some time of the marriage, all the accused
persons, including petitioner nos.2 to 7, started subjecting her to
cruelty on account of demand of additional dowry and, pursuant
to such demand, a motorcycle and further cash were also given
by her family members. However, despite the same, the demand
allegedly continued to escalate and she was subjected to
physical as well as mental harassment, including abuses and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2885 of 2018(8) dt.28-04-2026
3/12
threats of second marriage on the ground of her being issueless.
It has further been alleged that a Panchayati was convened to
resolve the dispute, but the accused persons (petitioners herein)
remained adamant in their demands and conduct. The complaint
further discloses that on the alleged date of occurrence, the
accused persons assaulted the complainant (O.P. No.2), forcibly
took her in a vehicle and abandoned her near Mirzapur More,
from where she was rescued by a local person who informed her
family members. Thereafter, she was taken for medical
treatment and, upon recovery, O.P No. 2 filed the complaint
being Complaint Case No.2406 of 2010, which was
subsequently forwarded for registration of F.I.R and
investigation. Accordingly, on the basis of the complaint, the
F.I.R was registered as Barauli P.S. Case No.162 of 2010,
culminating in submission of charge-sheet.
5. Upon perusal of the materials available on record,
including the complaint petition, statements recorded during
inquiry/investigation and the charge-sheet submitted by the
police, the learned Magistrate, finding a prima facie case,
proceeded to take cognizance of the offences under Sections
341, 323, 498A, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code as well as under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2885 of 2018(8) dt.28-04-2026
4/12
Prohibition Act against the petitioners vide the impugned order
dated 07.06.2014 in connection with Tr. No.1714 of 2017
arising out of Barauli P.S. Case No.162 of 2010. Aggrieved by
the impugned order of the cognizance, the present Criminal
Miscellaneous Application has been filed for setting aside the
same.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner nos.2 to 7
submits that the impugned order taking cognizance is wholly
mechanical and has been passed without proper appreciation of
the materials available on record. Learned counsel further
submits that the allegations made in the complaint petition are
omnibus, vague and general in nature, without attributing any
specific overt act to the individual petitioners. It is further
submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely
matrimonial in nature, arising out of incompatibility and
personal differences between husband and wife, which has been
given a criminal colour by falsely implicating the entire family.
Learned counsel further submits that the continuation of the
criminal proceeding against the petitioner nos.2 to 7 would
amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner nos.2 to 7 further
submits that most of the petitioners are either aged, infirm or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2885 of 2018(8) dt.28-04-2026
5/12
living separately at different places and have been unnecessarily
dragged into the present case merely to exert pressure on
husband of the opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that
petitioner no.2 is an aged and handicapped lady, while other
petitioners are residing at different places on account of their
independent avocation and livelihood. It is also submitted that
the opposite party no.2 herself was unwilling to reside in her
matrimonial home and had initiated separate maintenance
proceedings, and the present case has been instituted as a
counterblast. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the
impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and is fit to
be quashed.
8. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 supports
the impugned order and submits that the learned Magistrate has
rightly passed the impugned order upon due consideration of the
materials collected during investigation, which clearly disclose a
prima facie case against the petitioners. It is submitted that the
complaint petition and the statements of the witnesses
consistently support the allegations of demand of dowry and
cruelty, and at this stage, meticulous appreciation of evidence is
neither required nor permissible. Learned counsel further
submits that the petitioners have subjected the opposite party
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2885 of 2018(8) dt.28-04-2026
6/12
no.2 to continuous physical and mental harassment, compelling
her to leave her matrimonial home, and therefore, the criminal
proceeding cannot be said to be an abuse of the process of the
Court. Learned counsel submits that the present application is
devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
9. Learned APP for the State submits that upon
perusal of the materials on record collected during investigation,
including the statements of the informant (opposite party no.2)
and other witnesses, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken
cognizance. However, he submits that petitioner nos. 2 to 7 are
the in-laws ofopposite party no.2 and appropriate order may be
passed in the interest of justice.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner nos.2 to 7, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2
and the learned APP for the State, and upon perusal of the
materials available on record, this Court proceeds to examine
whether the impugned order warrants any interference by this
Court in light of the settled principles governing exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
11. At this stage, it is apposite to reproduce some
relevant paragraphs of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2885 of 2018(8) dt.28-04-2026
7/12
(2023) 16 SCC 666 with respect to the contours of the power to
quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
The Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:
“16. 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 v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC
599], this Court had occasion to deal with a
similar situation where the High Court had
refused [Mohd. Ikram v. State of Bihar, 2019
SCC OnLine Pat 1985] to quash an FIR
registered for various offences, including
Section 498-AIPC. 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 498-AIPC 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2885 of 2018(8) dt.28-04-2026
8/12discouraged.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
19. Of more recent origin is the decision of
this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P.
[(2023) 15 SCC 488] on the legal principles
applicable apropos Section 482 CrPC.
Therein, it was observed that when an
accused comes before the High Court,
invoking either the inherent power under
Section 482 CrPC 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.”
12. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin
Gupta v. State of Haryana and Anr., reported in (2025) 3 SCC
756 has observed as under:
“35. In one of the recent pronouncements of
this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P.
[Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., (2023) 15
SCC 488] , authored by one of us (J.B.
Pardiwala, J.), the legal principle applicable
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2885 of 2018(8) dt.28-04-2026
9/12apropos Section 482 CrPC was examined.
Therein, it was observed that when an
accused comes before the High Court,
invoking either the inherent power under
Section 482CrPC 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.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised
sparingly and with circumspection, particularly in cases arising
out of matrimonial disputes involving allegations under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code. While the Court does not
embark upon a meticulous appreciation of evidence at this stage,
it is equally incumbent to examine whether the uncontroverted
allegations, taken at their face value, disclose the essential
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2885 of 2018(8) dt.28-04-2026
10/12
ingredients of the offences alleged against each of the accused.
In cases where distant or separately residing relatives are
implicated on the basis of general and omnibus allegations
without any specific role attributed to them, the Court is duty-
bound to prevent misuse of the criminal process and to secure
the ends of justice by exercising its inherent powers.
14. In the present case, upon careful examination of
the complaint petition and the materials brought on record, it
appears that the allegations, though serious in nature, are largely
general and omnibus so far as most of the petitioners are
concerned. Except for petitioner no. 1, who is the husband, there
is no specific and distinct allegation attributing any overt act to
the other petitioners. The allegations against the family
members are sweeping in nature and do not disclose their
individual roles in the alleged occurrence. Moreover, it
transpires from the record that several of the petitioners are
residing separately at different places on account of their
independent engagements, which lends support to the contention
that they have been implicated in a routine manner.
15. It further appears that the dispute between the
parties essentially stems from matrimonial discord between the
husband and wife, and the criminal proceeding has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2885 of 2018(8) dt.28-04-2026
11/12
initiated in the backdrop of such strained relationship. The
materials on record also indicate that the opposite party no.2
was not willing to reside in her matrimonial home and had
initiated maintenance proceedings, which suggests existence of
underlying personal disputes. In such circumstances, allowing
the criminal prosecution to continue against the petitioner nos.2
to 7, particularly those against whom no specific allegations
have been made, would amount to abuse of the process of the
Court, whereas the case of the husband stands on a different
footing requiring independent consideration.
16. This Court further finds that the present case
squarely falls within the principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal
and Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Pradeep
Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947. It is now well settled that where
the allegations made in the complaint, even if taken at their face
value, do not constitute an offence or where the proceedings are
manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, the same are liable to
be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. In the facts of
the present case, the continuation of the criminal proceeding
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2885 of 2018(8) dt.28-04-2026
12/12
against the petitioner nos.2 to 7, particularly the relatives against
whom no specific allegations have been made, would result in
abuse of the process of the Court and, therefore, warrants
interference by this Court.
17. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
finds that the impugned order of cognizance dated 07.06.2014
passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Gopalganj in connection with Tr. No.1714 of 2017 arising out of
Barauli P.S. Case No.162 of 2010, cannot be sustained in the
eye of law so far as the petitioner nos.2 to 7 are concerned.
18. Accordingly, the impugned order of cognizance
dated 07.06.2014, is hereby set aside and the entire criminal
proceeding, as against the petitioner nos.2 to 7, stands quashed.
19. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application
is, accordingly, allowed.
20. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Court concerned forthwith.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-
U T