Patna High Court – Orders
Chandeshwar Sharma vs The State Of Bihar on 16 July, 2026
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73736 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-256 Year-2016 Thana- MANJHI District- Saran
======================================================
1. CHANDESHWAR SHARMA Son of Late Satya Narayan Sharma Resident
of Village - Pandeypur, P.S.- Daraunda, Distt - Saran at Chapra.
2. Rupwanti Devi @ Rupjhari Devi Wife of Sri Chandeshwar Sharma Resident
of Village - Pandeypur, P.S.- Daraunda, Distt - Saran at Chapra.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Priyanka Kumari Wife of Rajesh Kumar Sharma, D/o Krishnadeo Sharma
Resident of Village - Manjhi Kanchanpur, P.S.- Manjhi, Distt - Saran at
Chapra.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shubhesh Pandey, Adv.
: Mr. Amit Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For the O.P No. 2/ : Mr. Nawal Kihsore Singh, Adv.
: Mr. Manohar Prasad Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
4 16-07-2026
Heard the parties.
2. That this is an application for quashing the
Order taking Cognizance dated 30.08.2018 passed by
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IInd, Saran at
Chapra in connection with Manjhi of 2016 of Police Station
Case No. 256 whereby and whereunder the cognizance of
the offences has been taken under Sections 341, 323, 313,
307, 498 (A), 504, 506 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73736 of 2019(4) dt.16-07-2026
2/6
3. The prosecution case is that the Complainant
has filed a complaint before the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Saran at Chapra on 30.09.2016 which was sent
to the concerned police station for institution of the FIR vide
order dated 14.10.2016 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
alleging therein that she was married with Rajesh Kumar
Sharma on 26.11.2015 and when she went to her
matrimonial home the family members of her in-laws’ house
started torturing her and threatened to kill her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
Petitioner no. 1, namely, Chandeshwar Sharma is the father-
in-law and petitioner no. 2, namely, Rupwanti Devi, is the
mother-in-law of the complainant/informant.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed
reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered
in the cases of Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. vs. State
(NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Anr. reported
in (2019) 11 SCC 706 and Abhishek vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in [2023 SCC Online SC
1083]. The relevant paragraph Nos. 13 to 16 of the case of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73736 of 2019(4) dt.16-07-2026
3/6
Abhishek (Supra) are 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 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 then 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.73736 of 2019(4) dt.16-07-2026
4/6
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73736 of 2019(4) dt.16-07-2026
5/6
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.”
6. Learned counsel for the Informant and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State have vehemently
opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned order of
cognizance dated 30.08.2018.
7. It is submitted that one of the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court already quashed the proceeding against
other co-accused persons, who are in-laws and facing more
serious allegation through Cr. Misc. No. 83578 of 2019 and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73736 of 2019(4) dt.16-07-2026
6/6
24237 of 2019 respectively.
8. In view of the aforesaid, as petitioners are in
-laws, facing very general and omnibus allegation qua
committing cruelty, the order of cognizance dated
30.08.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-II, Saran at Chapra in Manjhi P.S. Case No. 256
of 2016 for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 313,
307, 498(A), 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act by which the petition
filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed is quashed
herewith.
9. Petition stands allowed.
10. Let a copy of this matter be sent to the learned
trial court immediately.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Aniket/-
U T
