Patna High Court – Orders
Vivekanand Sharma vs The State Of Bihar on 7 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48472 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-460 Year-2023 Thana- KANKARBAG District- Patna
======================================================
1. Vivekanand Sharma S/O Late Kameshwar Prasad Sharma Resident Of
Village-Saguni, P.S.-Masourhi, District-Patna At Present R.M.S. Colony
Road No.-5(A), P.S.-Kankarbagh, District-Patna.
2. Veena Devi W/O Vivekanand Sharma Resident Of Village-Saguni, P.S.-
Masourhi, District-Patna At Present R.M.S. Colony Road No.-5(A), P.S.-
Kankarbagh, District-Patna.
3. Chakrapani @ Chintu Sharma S/O Vivekanand Sharma Resident Of Village-
Saguni, P.S.-Masourhi, District-Patna At Present R.M.S. Colony Road No.-
5(A), P.S.-Kankarbagh, District-Patna.
4. Monika Devi W/O Chakrapani @ Chintu Sharma Resident Of Village-
Saguni, P.S.-Masourhi, District-Patna At Present R.M.S. Colony Road No.-
5(A), P.S.-Kankarbagh, District-Patna.
5. Rajat Sharma @ Shippi S/O Vivekanand Sharma Resident Of Village-
Saguni, P.S.-Masourhi, District-Patna At Present R.M.S. Colony Road No.-
5(A), P.S.-Kankarbagh, District-Patna.
6. Priyanka Devi W/O Rajat Sharma @ Shippi Sharma Resident Of Village-
Saguni, P.S.-Masourhi, District-Patna At Present R.M.S. Colony Road No.-
5(A), P.S.-Kankarbagh, District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. KHUSBOO KUMARI W/o Rahul Kumar Resident of Mohalla-R.M.S.
Colony Road No.-3, P.S.-Kankarbagh, District-Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binay Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
4 07-04-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP
for the State.
2. The present application has been filed by the petitioners
invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for quashing the
FIR bearing Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 460 of 2023 under section
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48472 of 2023(4) dt.07-04-2026
2/6
498(A), 324, 307 and 34 of the I.P.C. and section ¾ of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
3. The detailed FIR has been lodged by the informant with the
allegation that the informant was married on 25.06.2018 with Rahul
Kumar and thereafter she was tortured. She also states that Rs. 15
lakhs was transferred in the account of her father-in-law and elder
brother-in-law. On refusal of payment of money her husband
allegedly assaulted her on her head with an iron rod but she did not
inform anybody about the same. On 27.04.2023 at 05:30 P.M her
husband Rahul Kumar assaulted her by a sharp edged weapon and
she sustained injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the
petitioner no. 1 and 2 are Father-in-law and mother-in-law residing in
Supaul, petitioner no. 3, 4, 5 & 6 are brothers-in-law and Sisters-in-
laws (bhabhi) of the informant and all of them resides separately
from the informant and have their own lives and have no concern
with this case. 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
petitioners were implicated only because of their relations with the
husband of informant.
“(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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48472 of 2023(4) dt.07-04-2026
3/6recent 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 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
discouraged.
14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand
[(2010) 7 SCC 667], this Court noted that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48472 of 2023(4) dt.07-04-2026
4/6
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48472 of 2023(4) dt.07-04-2026
5/6
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.”
5. Learned Counsel for the informant has brought on record
the injury report of the lady obtained from a private hospital which
shows that there was wound on her left mid forearm which was a
deep wound and a simple injury was also found. Section 320 of the
Indian Penal Code details eight types of injuries which can be termed
as grievous are as follows:
“(First)– Emasculation.
(Secondly)– Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
(Thirdly)– Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48472 of 2023(4) dt.07-04-2026
6/6
(Fourthly)– Privation of any member or joint.
(Fifthly)– Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any
member or joint.
(Sixthly)– Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
(Seventhly)– Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
(Eighthly)– Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the
sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain,
or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.”
6. The deep cut wound on the mid forearm in the opinion of
this court may not come within the definition of grievous injury. The
same is only an observation on the insistence of the learned counsel
for the informant for going through the injury report, the same may
hold importance for going through the relevant prosecution.
7. At two places the specific allegation of assault is against the
husband and vague and general allegations have been levelled against
the in-laws.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, FIR
bearing Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 460 of 2023 under section 498(A),
324, 307 and 34 of the I.P.C. and section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act
stands quashed.
9. Accordingly, the application stands allowed.
(Ansul, J)
Siddharth Soni/-
U T