Patna High Court
Umesh Prasad Sharma vs The State Of Bihar on 1 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86355 of 2023
Arising out of PS. Case No.-195 Year-2022 Thana- BARGAINIA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
1. Umesh Prasad Sharma, Son of Late Ram Prasad Sharma, Resident of
Village- Pachtaki Ram, PS- Bairgania, Distt- Sitamarhi
2. Rama Sharma, Wife of Umesh Prasad Sharma, Resident of Village- Pachtaki
Ram, PS- Bairgania, Distt- Sitamarhi
3. Raman Kumar, Son of Umesh Prasad Sharma, Resident of Village- Pachtaki
Ram, Ps- Bairgania, Distt- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Simmi Mishra, Wife of Mrityunjay, Resident of Village- Pachtaki Ram, PS-
Bairgania, Distt- Sitamarhi At Present Resident of Block A 1, Gali No. 18,
House No. 24, Bangali Colony, Santi Nagar, Burari , Delhi.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-05-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the Informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State.
2. Petitioners seek quashing of the order of cognizance
dated 20.09.2023 passed by learned Sub-divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Sadar, Sitamarhi in Bairgania P.S. Case No. 195 of
2022 by which he has taken cognizance for the offences under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86355 of 2023 dt.01-05-2026
2/6
Sections 341, 323, 498(A) and 504/34 IPC and Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The prosecution case is that the informant was
married to the son of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 on 26.05.2017 as per
Hindu Rites and rituals. Thereafter, she was being subjected to
cruelty due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry and ultimately
on 26.06.2022 she was ousted from the matrimonial home after
snatching her belongings.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
Petitioner No. 1 is father-in-law, Petitioner No. 2 is mother-in-law
and Petitioner No. 3 is the brother-in-law (Devar) of the informant.
It is further submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation
against the petitioners. It is also submitted that after filing divorce
case by son of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 bearing Divorce Case No.
75 of 2022 on 21.03.2022 the present case has been lodged by the
informant to save her skin.
5. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed
the quashing of the order of cognizance dated 20.09.2023.
6. A perusal of the records would show that allegations
are primarily against husband. Moreover, the allegation against in-
laws is general and omnibus without any specific detail of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86355 of 2023 dt.01-05-2026
3/6
objective material to support the allegation. Thus this Court holds
that the present prosecution is nothing but an abuse of the process
of the Court in view of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision rendered
in the case of State of Haryana vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal and
Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. Moreover, in the case of
Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [2023 SCC
Online SC 1083] Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Paragraph Nos.
13 to 16 has held as under:-
“(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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86355 of 2023 dt.01-05-2026
4/6
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86355 of 2023 dt.01-05-2026
5/6
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.
7. Resultantly, the order of cognizance dated 20.09.2023
passed by learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar,
Sitamarhi in Bairgania P.S. Case No. 195 of 2022 by which he has
taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 498(A)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86355 of 2023 dt.01-05-2026
6/6
and 504/34 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is
quashed so far as the petitioners are concerned.
8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.
Vikash/- (Ansul, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date Transmission Date
[ad_1]
Source link
