Patna High Court – Orders
Indradev Thakur vs The State Of Bihar on 5 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81025 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1080 Year-2021 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE
District- Begusarai
======================================================
1. Indradev Thakur Son Of Late Bacha Thakur Resident Of Village - Gaura,
P.S. - Teghra, District - Begusarai
2. Devta Devi Wife Of Indradev Thakur Resident Of Village - Gaura, P.S. -
Teghra, District - Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/S
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Loveli Kumari Wife Of Pramod Thakur, D/O. Ramanuj Singh Resident Of
Village - Simariya, P.S. - Barauni, District - Begusarai
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravish Mishra, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
4 05-05-2026
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
order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Begusarai in Complaint Case No. 1080 (c) of 2021
whereby and whereunder the learned Court has taken cognizance
under Section323, 341, 504 and 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation in the complaint is that marriage was
solemnized in the year 2013 with one Pramod Thakur, son of the
petitioners, sufficient dowry was given but thereafter more dowry
was demanded and she was being tortured for the same. Despite
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81025 of 2023(4) dt.05-05-2026
2/5
several attempts the accused persons were not pacified.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
complaint would show that there is general and omnibus allegation
against all accused persons. No specific allegation is there with
specific time and date nor there is any objective material to support
the allegation.
5. 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 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the
complainant.
“(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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81025 of 2023(4) dt.05-05-2026
3/5
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81025 of 2023(4) dt.05-05-2026
4/5
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81025 of 2023(4) dt.05-05-2026
5/5
circumspection, to try and read between the lines.”
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, order
dated 22.10.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Begusarai in Complaint Case No. 1080 (c) of 2021 is hereby
quashed.
7. Accordingly, the application stands allowed.
(Ansul, J)
Siddharth Soni/-
U T
[ad_1]
Source link
