Patna High Court – Orders
Alok Kumar vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 23 April, 2026
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28130 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-362 Year-2017 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District-
Kishanganj
======================================================
Alok Kumar, S/o- Saryu Mishra, Resident of Village- Dilavarganj, P.S.-
Kishanganj, District- Kishanganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ritu Kumari Jha, W/o- Alok Kumar Jha, D/o- Shri Rajendra Kumar Jha,
Presently residing at Village- Vishanpur, P.S.- Kochadhaman, District-
Kishanganj.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
7 23-04-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned APP for the State.
2. The present application has been filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioner against the
order dated 25.01.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kishanganj (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’)
in connection with Complaint Case No.362 (C) of 2017,
wherein the learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offence
under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the
petitioner herein.
3. The genesis of the present case arises out of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28130 of 2018(7) dt.23-04-2026
2/14
Complaint Case No. 362 (C) of 2017, instituted on the basis of a
complaint dated 26.05.2017 filed by the O.P. No.2 (wife of
petitioner) alleging commission of offence under Section 498A
of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. As per the
complaint, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on
25.11.2016 according to Hindu rites and customs, and it is
alleged that soon thereafter the petitioner began subjecting the
complainant (O.P. No.2) to cruelty in connection with demand
of dowry, namely a Scorpio vehicle and a sum of Rs.
10,00,000/-. It is further alleged that the complainant (O.P.
No.2) was taken to her parental home where such demand was
reiterated before her family members and, upon non-fulfilment
of the same, she was subjected to mental harassment and
neglect.
4. On the basis of the said allegations and upon
perusal of the materials available on record, the learned Trial
Court, after inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and
examination of three complaint witnesses, found a prima facie
case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and directed
issuance of summons against the petitioner vide the impugned
order dated 25.01.2018. Being aggrieved by the said order of
cognizance, the petitioner has approached this Court through the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28130 of 2018(7) dt.23-04-2026
3/14
present Criminal Miscellaneous Application for quashing the
impugned order dated 25.01.2018.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order taking cognizance is wholly unsustainable in
the eyes of law, as the complaint petition, even if taken at its
face value, does not disclose the essential ingredients of
“cruelty” as contemplated under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code. It is submitted that the allegations are vague,
omnibus and bereft of specific instances of any willful conduct
of such a nature as is likely to drive the complainant (O.P. No.2)
to commit suicide or to cause grave injury, nor is there any
material to show harassment with a view to coerce fulfilment of
unlawful dowry demand. Learned counsel further submits that
the learned Trial Court has mechanically proceeded to issue
summons without appreciating that mere bald and general
allegations of demand of dowry, without any supporting
particulars or proximate acts of cruelty, cannot form the basis
for criminal prosecution. He submits that the depositions of the
inquiry witnesses recorded under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. are
materially inconsistent and contradictory to each other as well
as to the version of the complainant (O.P. No.2), thereby
rendering the prosecution story inherently doubtful and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28130 of 2018(7) dt.23-04-2026
4/14
unworthy of reliance even at the threshold stage.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
vehemently submits that the entire prosecution is a counterblast
and an abuse of the process of the Court, instituted with an
oblique motive to conceal the conduct of the complainant (O.P.
No.2). Learned counsel submits that admittedly, soon after the
marriage, the O.P. No.2 left her matrimonial home and was
traced in the company of one Naiyar Nawaz, with whom she
was having a prior relationship. It is submitted that in this
regard, Kochadhaman P.S. Case No.246 of 2016 was instituted,
and during investigation, the O.P. No.2, in her statement
recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., categorically stated
that she had left on her own volition and had not been
kidnapped, pursuant to which final form was submitted treating
the case as mistake of fact. Learned counsel, thus, submits that
the complaint case has been subsequently engineered by giving
a colour of dowry demand and cruelty to what is essentially a
case arising out of the O.P No.2 own conduct and pre-existing
relationship, in order to save herself from social and legal
consequences. It is submitted that the inherent improbabilities
and contradictions appearing from the record strike at the very
root of the prosecution case and demolish the substratum of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28130 of 2018(7) dt.23-04-2026
5/14
allegations.
7. Learned counsel further submits that continuation
of the criminal proceeding in the present case would amount to
gross abuse of the process of the Court, as the dispute is
manifestly attended with mala fide and has been maliciously
instituted with ulterior motives. It is submitted that the case
squarely falls within the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the celebrated judgment of State of State of
Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors., reported in 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly where the allegations are
inherently improbable, absurd, and do not disclose the
commission of any offence. He submits that this Court, in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C., is duty bound to prevent abuse of the process of law and
to secure the ends of justice by quashing the impugned order as
well as the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom.
8. Learned APP for the State submits that the record
reflects certain inconsistencies between the version of the
complainant (O.P. No.2) and the materials emerging from the
earlier police case, including the statement of the complainant
recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., wherein she is stated
to have left on her own volition, leading to submission of final
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28130 of 2018(7) dt.23-04-2026
6/14
form in the said case. It is thus submitted that the matter be
adjudicated by this Hon’ble Court in light of the settled
principles governing exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C., including those enunciated in State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal (supra), and appropriate orders be passed in
accordance with law.
9. Despite repeated opportunities having been granted,
no one has appeared on behalf of O.P. No. 2 to contest the
present application. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to consider
and decide the present application on the basis of the materials
available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of
the petitioner and the State.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as learned APP for the State and upon perusal
of the materials available on record, this Court finds that the
scope of interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is well-
settled. The inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly,
with circumspection, and only in cases where the allegations
made in the complaint, even if taken at their face value and
accepted in entirety, do not disclose the commission of any
offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with
mala fide and instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28130 of 2018(7) dt.23-04-2026
7/14
vengeance or to abuse the process of the Court. In matrimonial
disputes, particularly those arising out of allegations under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the husband, the
Court is required to carefully scrutinize whether the basic
ingredients of “cruelty” are prima facie made out, and whether
the allegations are specific and supported by material, or merely
general and omnibus in nature. It is equally settled that where
the criminal proceeding appears to be a counterblast to earlier
events or is founded upon inherently improbable and
contradictory allegations, continuation of such proceeding
would amount to abuse of the process of law. In such
circumstances, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) guide the
exercise of jurisdiction, empowering this Court to quash the
proceedings to secure the ends of justice.
11. At this stage, it is pertinent to make factual
analysis of the case in order to guide the route of the present
order.
12. Upon a careful consideration of the complaint
petition, the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant
(O.P. No.2) and the depositions of the inquiry witnesses
recorded under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., it transpires that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28130 of 2018(7) dt.23-04-2026
8/14
allegations with regard to demand of dowry and cruelty are
general and lacking in material particulars. Though it has been
alleged that a four-wheeler and a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- were
demanded, there is no specific instance of any overt act or
conduct on the part of the petitioner which would satisfy the
ingredients of “cruelty” as defined under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code. The statements of the witnesses also do not
disclose any proximate act of harassment or ill-treatment, rather
they contain improvements and variations, thereby rendering the
prosecution version doubtful at the very threshold.
13. Further, from the materials on record, it is evident
that immediately after the marriage, the complainant (O.P. No.2)
had left her matrimonial home and was subsequently traced in
the company of one Naiyar Nawaz. In connection with her
disappearance, Kochadhaman P.S. Case No. 246 of 2016 was
instituted, wherein the O.P. No.2, in her statement recorded
under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., categorically stated that she
had left on her own volition and had not been subjected to any
coercion or kidnapping, which ultimately led to submission of
final form treating the case as mistake of fact. This aspect
assumes significance inasmuch as it creates a serious dent in the
prosecution story and probabilizes the defence version that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28130 of 2018(7) dt.23-04-2026
9/14
O.P. No.2 was in a pre-existing relationship and had voluntarily
left the house.
14. Moreover, the subsequent institution of the present
complaint case, wherein allegations of dowry demand and
cruelty have been levelled, appears to be an afterthought and a
clear attempt to give a different colour to the earlier incident.
The inconsistencies between the version of the O.P. No.2 in the
present complaint and her earlier statement under Section 164 of
the Cr.P.C., coupled with the contradictory depositions of the
inquiry witnesses, go to the root of the matter and render the
allegations inherently improbable. In such circumstances, the
continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner
would not only be unjustified but would also amount to an
abuse of the process of the Court.
15. 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
(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:
“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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28130 of 2018(7) dt.23-04-2026
10/14Therein, 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.”
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi
Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr., reported in
(2025) 3 SCC 735 has held as under:
“30. The inclusion of Section 498-A IPC by
way of an amendment was intended to curb
cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband
and his family, ensuring swift intervention by
the State. However, in recent years, as there
have been a notable rise in matrimonial
disputes across the country, accompanied by
growing discord and tension within the
institution of marriage, consequently, there
has been a growing tendency to misuse
provisions like Section 498-A IPC as a tool
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28130 of 2018(7) dt.23-04-2026
11/14for unleashing personal vendetta against the
husband and his family by a wife. Making
vague and generalised allegations during
matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinised, will
lead to the misuse of legal processes and an
encouragement for use of arm twisting
tactics by a wife and/or her family.
Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke
Section 498-A IPC against the husband and
his family in order to seek compliance with
the unreasonable demands of a wife.
Consequently, this Court has, time and
again, cautioned against prosecuting the
husband and his family in the absence of a
clear prima facie case against them.”
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in
Ghanshyam Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.,
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1301, as under:
“11. As regards the Appellant, the
purportedly specific allegations levelled
against him are also obscure in nature. Even
if the allegations and the case of the
prosecution is taken at its face value, apart
from the bald allegations without any
specifics of time, date or place, there is no
incriminating material found by the
prosecution or rather produced by the
complainant to substantiate the ingredients
of “cruelty” under section 498A IPC, as
recently observed in the case of
Jaydedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of
Gujarat and Rajesh Chaddha v. State of
Uttar Pradesh. The Complainant has
admittedly failed to produce any medical
records or injury reports, x-ray reports, or
any witnesses to substantiate her
allegations. We cannot ignore the fact that
the Complainant even withdrew her second
Complaint dt. 06.12.1999 six days later on
12.12.1999. There is also no evidence to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28130 of 2018(7) dt.23-04-2026
12/14substantiate the purported demand for
dowry allegedly made by the Appellant or
his family and the investigative agencies in
their own prudence have not added sections
3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 to
the chargesheet.”
18. Moreover, 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
apropos Section 482CrPC 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28130 of 2018(7) dt.23-04-2026
13/14lines.”
(emphasis supplied)
19. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations levelled in
the complaint petition, even if taken at their face value, do not
prima facie constitute the offence under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The materials on
record, including the statement of the complainant recorded
under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. in the earlier police case and
the contradictory versions emerging from the inquiry witnesses,
clearly indicate that the present prosecution is manifestly
attended with mala fide and has been instituted with an ulterior
motive. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has been
granted a decree of divorce by a competent Court vide judgment
dated 17.12.2018 passed in Matrimonial Case No. 13 of 2017
against the O.P. No. 2. It is appropriate to say that the present
case squarely falls within the guidelines provided by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
(supra) and Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947.
Therefore, continuation of such criminal proceeding would
amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
20. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28130 of 2018(7) dt.23-04-2026
14/14
25.01.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kishanganj, in connection with Complaint Case No. 362 (C) of
2017, taking cognizance under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code and directing issuance of summons against the petitioner,
is hereby quashed. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding
arising out of the said complaint case stands set aside.
21. Resultantly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous
Application stands allowed.
22. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Court concerned forthwith for information and needful
compliance.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-
U T
