Patna High Court – Orders
Ravikant Bharti vs Nisha Kumari And Anr on 9 July, 2026
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45588 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2017 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Darbhanga
======================================================
1. Sapna Devi @ Sapna Kumari W/o Devender Kumar, D/o Chhathhu Ravidas
R/o F-5/67, Sultanpuri, C Block, Saraswati Vihar, North West Delhi,
Permanent R/o Rashtriyegunj, Mazar Sharif, Near Station Road,
Phulwarisharif, P.s.- Phulwarisharif, Dist.- Patna
2. Vikash Chandra @ Vikash Chandra Ravi S/o Chhathu Ravidas R/o
Rashtriyegunj, Mazar Sharif, Near Station Road, Phulwarisharif, P.s.-
Phulwarisharif, Dist.- Patna, Presently Residing at Newalal Chauk, Vasant
Vihar Colony, P.S.- Maranga, Purnea
3. Rachna Devi @ Rachna Kumari W/o Sri Kundan Kumar, D/o Chhathu
Ravidas Presently Residing at Dujra, Rajapur Pul, P.S.- Buddhanagar, Patna,
Permanent R/o Rashtriyegunj, Mazar Sharif, Near Station Road,
Phulwarisharif, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, Dist.- Patna
4. Rohit Chandra S/o Chhathu Ravidas R/o Rashtriyegunj, Mazar Sharif, Near
Station Road, Phulwarisharif, P.s.- Phulwarisharif, Dist.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Nisha Kumari and Anr daughter of Mahesh Prasad Gupta, resident of
Mohalla- Milan Chowk, Police Station- LaheriyaSarai, District- Darbhanga
and
2. The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jagjit Roshan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Chaubey Jawahar, APP
For the O.P. No.1 : Mr. Rajib Ranjan Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
11 09-07-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as
learned APP for the State.
2. The present Criminal Miscellaneous application has
been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for quashing the order dated 05.05.2018 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Sub-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45588 of 2018(11) dt.09-07-2026
2/13
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga, (hereinafter referred
to as ‘Magistrate’) in Criminal Case No. 1547 of 2017, arising
out of Darbhanga Mahila P.S. Case No. 43 of 2017, whereby
cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections
498A, 323, 341 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
against the accused persons including the present petitioners and
directed issuance of summons for appearance of accused
persons.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that O.P. No.1
(informant) alleged that she came in contact with Ravikant
Bharti (co-accused) in the year 2009 while pursuing her studies
and, thereafter, both of them developed a love affair. It has been
alleged that they solemnized marriage on 30.10.2010 according
to Hindu rites and customs without the consent of their
respective family members. It is further alleged that after the
marriage they resided together in a rented house till 2012 and,
subsequently, when O.P. No.1 insisted upon being taken to her
matrimonial home, she was taken there where petitioners herein
(the family members of the husband) objected to the marriage
and allegedly stated that had he married elsewhere they would
have received sufficient dowry and gifts. It is alleged that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45588 of 2018(11) dt.09-07-2026
3/13
present petitioners demanded two kathas of land and Rs.10
lakhs in cash from her parental family and, upon her expressing
inability to fulfil the said demand, she was subjected to physical
and mental cruelty. It is further alleged that thereafter her
alleged husband developed intimacy with another woman and
the family members supported him. It is further alleged that on
16.12.2015, O.P. No.1 was assaulted, her ornaments and
belongings were taken away and she was driven out of her
matrimonial home. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations,
Darbhanga Mahila P.S. Case No. 43 of 2017 came to be
instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323,
341, 379, 313 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on 01.06.2017.
4. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating
Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons for
the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 341 of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. Upon perusal of material available on records
including case diary and charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate,
found prima facie case and accordingly, vide impugned order
dated 05.05.2018 took cognizance of the offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 323, 341 read with section 34 of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45588 of 2018(11) dt.09-07-2026
4/13
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act and directed issuance of summons against the
accused persons. Aggrieved thereby, the present petitioners have
preferred this present Criminal Miscellaneous Application
invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside
impugned order as well as entire criminal proceeding arising
therefrom.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the
continuation of the criminal proceeding against the present
petitioners amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. It is
submitted that, as per the prosecution version, the present
petitioners are brothers-in-law and married sisters-in-law of O.P.
No.1. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations made
in the FIR as well as the materials collected during investigation
are wholly vague, general and omnibus in nature and no specific
overt act or distinct role has been attributed to any of the present
petitioners. Learned Counsel further submits that except making
bald and sweeping allegations against all the family members,
no material has been brought on record to prima facie establish
the commission of any offence by the present petitioners. It is
further submitted that all the petitioners except petitioner no.4
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45588 of 2018(11) dt.09-07-2026
5/13
have been residing separately on account of their marriage or
employment and have been implicated merely because of their
relationship with the alleged husband.
6. Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that
the very foundation of the prosecution case is disputed
inasmuch as the alleged marriage between O.P. No.1 and the
alleged husband has been specifically denied. Learned counsel
further submits that during the course of investigation no
documentary evidence regarding the alleged marriage could be
collected and even the parents of O.P. No.1 did not support the
allegation of marriage. He further submits that the materials
collected during investigation do not disclose any prima facie
case against the present petitioners and the learned Magistrate
has taken cognizance in a mechanical manner without proper
application of judicial mind. Placing reliance upon Rajesh
Sharma and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. reported in
(2018) 10 SCC 472, learned counsel submits that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that the tendency to implicate all the
relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes on the basis of
omnibus allegations deserves to be discouraged and that clear
supporting material is required before criminal prosecution is
permitted to continue against such relatives. It is thus submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45588 of 2018(11) dt.09-07-2026
6/13
that impugned order, and entire criminal proceeding arising
therefrom in respect of present petitioners deserve to be set
aside while exercising inherent jurisdiction of this court under
section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
7. Learned counsel for O.P. No.1 opposes the prayer
for quashing and submits that the allegations made in the FIR
and the materials collected during investigation prima facie
disclose the commission of cognizable offences. Learned
counsel further submits that the learned Magistrate has rightly
taken cognizance after considering the materials on record
including case diary and charge-sheet and that the correctness or
otherwise of the allegations cannot be examined in a proceeding
under Section 482 of the Code. It is further submitted that in
D.V. Case No.24 of 2016 filed against husband of O.P. No.1 and
Ors. vide order dated 18.11.2024, the learned Civil Judge,
Senior Division XIV, Patna hold that both the parties have lived
in a relationship that comes under the purview of Domestic
relationship. It is thus submitted that present application is
devoid of any merit and deserves to be set aside.
8. Learned APP for the State also opposes the
application. Learned APP, however, fairly conceded that the
present petitioners are the in-laws of O.P. No.1 and further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45588 of 2018(11) dt.09-07-2026
7/13
submits that this Court may pass appropriate order in the interest
of justice.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as well
as learned APP for the State and perused the materials available
on record. The principal question which falls for consideration
before this Court is whether, in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, continuation of the criminal proceeding against
the present petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process
of the Court so as to warrant exercise of the inherent jurisdiction
of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
10. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is
appropriate here to discuss the scope and ambit of the inherent
powers vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. The inherent jurisdiction preserved
under Section 482 of the Code is intended to prevent abuse of
the process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice.
Though the power is of wide amplitude, the same is to be
exercised sparingly, with great caution and only in exceptional
circumstances where the Court is satisfied that allowing the
criminal proceeding to continue would result in miscarriage of
justice. At the stage of exercising jurisdiction under Section 482
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45588 of 2018(11) dt.09-07-2026
8/13
of the Code, the High Court is not expected to undertake a
meticulous appreciation of evidence or adjudicate disputed
questions of fact. The Court is only required to examine whether
the allegations contained in the FIR/complaint, if accepted at
their face value, disclose the commission of any cognizable
offence against the accused and whether continuation of the
criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of
the Court.
11. At this stage, it is appropriate 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
(2023) 16 SCC 666 with respect to the contours of the power to
quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code especially in case of matrimonial offences. 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-A IPC. Noting that the foremost
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45588 of 2018(11) dt.09-07-2026
9/13issue 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-A 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.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45588 of 2018(11) dt.09-07-2026
10/13ingredients 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. In the present case, it appears that the allegations
against the present petitioners are general, omnibus and sweeping
in nature. Though it has been alleged that all the family members
demanded dowry and subjected O.P. No.1 to physical and mental
cruelty, but neither any specific overt act or distinct role has been
attributed any of the present petitioners. Except making bald
allegations against all the family members collectively, no
particulars have been furnished indicating the individual
involvement of the present petitioners in the alleged commission
of the offences.
13. At this stage, this Court also notices that learned
counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the
very factum of marriage between O.P. No.1 and the alleged
husband is seriously disputed and that the materials collected
during investigation do not substantiate the allegation of
marriage. However, this Court is not inclined to enter into the
said disputed question of fact while exercising jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code, as the same can appropriately be gone
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45588 of 2018(11) dt.09-07-2026
11/13
into only upon appreciation of evidence.
14. This Court further notices that, as per the
prosecution version, the present petitioners are brothers-in-law
and married sisters-in-law of O.P. No.1. Even proceeding on the
prosecution version, the allegations levelled against them remain
wholly vague and omnibus. No date, time or circumstance has
been specified as to which of the present petitioners demanded
dowry, subjected O.P. No.1 to cruelty or committed any act
constituting the offences alleged.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly
cautioned that in matrimonial disputes there is an increasing
tendency to implicate every member of the husband’s family
irrespective of their actual involvement. It has consistently been
held that prosecution against the relatives of the husband cannot
be sustained merely on the basis of bald, omnibus and sweeping
allegations and that the complaint must disclose clear, specific
and distinct allegations against each accused. The principles laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are intended to ensure that
criminal law is not used as a weapon to harass the relatives of the
husband in the absence of any prima facie material indicating
their involvement.
16. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the
present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45588 of 2018(11) dt.09-07-2026
12/13
allegations against the present petitioners do not satisfy the
essential requirement of disclosing their individual role in the
alleged commission of the offences. The learned Magistrate has
also taken cognizance without recording any reason indicating
how the materials collected during investigation disclose a prima
facie case against each of the present petitioners.
17. In such circumstances, permitting the criminal
prosecution to continue against the present petitioners would
amount to allowing a criminal proceeding to proceed solely on
the basis of vague and generalized allegations. Such continuation
would not only result in unnecessary harassment to the present
petitioners but would also constitute an abuse of the process of
the Court.
18. The present case squarely falls within the
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335, particularly the category where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the complaint and the materials collected
during investigation, even if taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety, fail to disclose the commission of any
offence against the accused, thereby warranting exercise of the
inherent jurisdiction of this Court to prevent abuse of the process
of law and to secure the ends of justice.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45588 of 2018(11) dt.09-07-2026
13/13
19. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.05.2018
passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Darbhanga, in Criminal Case No. 1547 of 2017, arising out of
Darbhanga Mahila P.S. Case No. 43 of 2017, so far as it relates to
the present petitioners, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the
entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, qua, the present
petitioners stands quashed.
20. The present criminal miscellaneous application is,
accordingly, allowed.
21. Interim order(s), if any, stands vacated.
22. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court
concerned forthwith for needful and compliance.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-
U T
