Patna High Court – Orders
Jamil Ahmad And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 1 May, 2026
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3371 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2425 Year-2015 Thana- WEST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT
District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Jamil Ahmad Son of Late Saharuddin, Resident of Village Telpur, P.S.
Lauriya, District West Champaran.
2. Junaid Ahmad @ Junaid Alam Son of Late Sheikh Bari, Resident of Village
Bagahi Deoraj, P.S. Lauriya, District West Champaran.
3. Husne Ara Khatoon @ Husne Ara Begum Wife of Junaid Ahmad, Daughter
of Jamil Amhad.
4. Roshan Ara Daughter of Jamil Ahmad, Wife of Md. Faiyaz,
Both Resident of Village-Manguraha, P.S. Ramnagar, District West
Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Hena Shabnam Wife of Aurangzeb, Daughter of Farmood Alam, Resident of
Village- Bagahi Deoraj, P.S. Lauriya, District West Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Gauri Shankar Gupta, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
9 01-05-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners 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 invoking
the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the order
dated 10.03.2016 passed in Complaint Case No. 2425 C of 2015
(S.C. No. 985 of 2016) by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran (hereinafter referred to as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3371 of 2018(9) dt.01-05-2026
2/11
‘Magistrate’), wherein the learned Magistrate took cognizance
of the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 against the petitioners herein, who are in-laws of the O.P.
No.2, and against husband of O.P. No.2.
3. Brief facts of the case, as emerging from the record,
are that O.P. No. 2 filed Complaint Case No. 2425 C of 2015 on
28.10.2015 before the Court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bettiah, alleging that she was married to Aurangzeb
(co-accused) on 14.03.2012 and, after some time of the
marriage, she was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of
dowry, particularly a Bolero vehicle. It has been alleged that
upon failure of her parental side to meet the said demand, she
was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband and
his family members. Further allegation is that certain amounts
were forcibly taken from her side and she was threatened with
dire consequences, including remarriage of her husband. It is
further alleged that on 27.10.2015, at about 8:00 A.M., she was
assaulted by the accused persons and an attempt was made to
administer poison to her, which she somehow resisted, and
thereafter she was ousted from her matrimonial home along
with her children.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3371 of 2018(9) dt.01-05-2026
3/11
4. Upon perusal of the materials available on record,
including the complaint petition, the statement of O.P. No. 2
recorded on solemn affirmation and the statements of the
inquiry witnesses, the learned Magistrate found a prima facie
case and accordingly took cognizance of the offences
punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and
under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the
petitioners as well as the husband of O.P. No. 2, and summoned
them to face trial vide the impugned order dated 10.03.2016.
5. Aggrieved by the said impugned order of
cognizance dated 10.03.2016, the petitioners have preferred the
present application seeking quashing of the same by invoking
the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
impugned order of cognizance is wholly mechanical and has
been passed without proper application of judicial mind. It is
submitted that the petitioners, who are relatives of the husband,
have been roped in the present case on the basis of vague,
general and omnibus allegations without attributing any specific
overt act to them. Learned counsel further submits that no
concrete or specific instance of cruelty or demand of dowry has
been alleged against these petitioners, and the allegations made
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3371 of 2018(9) dt.01-05-2026
4/11
in the complaint petition are sweeping in nature, which do not
satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code or Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits
that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the
petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of the Court,
particularly when the dispute appears to be a matrimonial
discord which has been given a criminal colour with mala fide
intention. He submits that the married sisters-in-law and other
relatives have been unnecessarily implicated only to harass the
entire family. It is submitted that the present case squarely falls
within the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors., reported
in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and therefore, the impugned order is
liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction to secure
the ends of justice.
8. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
quashing and submits that from the complaint petition and the
materials collected during inquiry, a prima facie case is made
out against the petitioners. He submits that the learned
Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance and, at this stage,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3371 of 2018(9) dt.01-05-2026
5/11
interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not warranted.
9. Despite valid service of notice and sufficient
opportunities having been granted, no one has appeared on
behalf of O.P. No. 2 to contest the present application, and the
matter is accordingly being considered in her absence.
10. Having considered the rival submissions and on
examination of the record, it is trite that the inherent jurisdiction
of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is to be invoked with great caution and only to
prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends
of justice. At the stage of cognizance, the Court is required to
ascertain whether the allegations, taken at their face value,
disclose the commission of any offence and not to undertake a
detailed evaluation of the evidence or its reliability.
Nonetheless, where the allegations are general in nature, lack
specific particulars, or fail to constitute the essential ingredients
of the alleged offence, this Court would be justified in
exercising its inherent powers to quash such proceedings.
11. It is equally well settled that in cases arising out of
matrimonial disputes, the tendency to implicate all family
members of the husband without specific and distinct
allegations has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3371 of 2018(9) dt.01-05-2026
6/11
in a catena of decisions. The Hon’ble Apex Court has
consistently held that vague and omnibus allegations, without
any prima facie material indicating active involvement, would
not justify the continuation of criminal proceedings against such
relatives. However, it is equally settled that where the
allegations are inherently improbable, absurd, or do not disclose
the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, or where the
proceeding appears to be manifestly attended with mala fide and
instituted with ulterior motive, the Court would be justified in
exercising its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the
process of law.
12. 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:
“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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3371 of 2018(9) dt.01-05-2026
7/11similar 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-AIPC. 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 498-AIPC 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3371 of 2018(9) dt.01-05-2026
8/11in 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.”
13. 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 482 CrPC 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3371 of 2018(9) dt.01-05-2026
9/11FIR/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.”
(emphasis supplied)
14. Upon careful examination of the complaint
petition, the statement of O.P. No. 2 on solemn affirmation and
the statements of the inquiry witnesses, it appears that the core
allegation of demand of dowry, particularly the demand of a
Bolero vehicle, is primarily directed against the husband. So far
as the present petitioners are concerned, the allegations are
largely general, omnibus and sweeping in nature without
specifying any particular date, time or specific overt act
attributable to each of them. The materials on record do not
disclose any distinct role played by these petitioners so as to
prima facie constitute the ingredients of the alleged offences
against them.
15. It further transpires that petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are
sisters-in-law residing separately, and petitioner no. 2 is the
brother-in-law (bahnoi), who does not ordinarily share the same
household, thereby making their direct involvement in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3371 of 2018(9) dt.01-05-2026
10/11
alleged day-to-day acts of cruelty inherently doubtful. The
allegations regarding assault and attempt to administer poison
also lack specific attribution against the individual petitioners
and appear to be exaggerated and generalized. In such
circumstances, the implication of all the family members, in
absence of specific allegations, indicates a tendency to rope in
the entire family, which casts serious doubt on the sustainability
of the criminal proceeding against these petitioners.
16. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of
the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised to
prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends
of justice. In Bhajan Lal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has laid down illustrative categories wherein criminal
proceedings can be quashed, including cases where the
allegations made in the complaint, even if taken at their face
value, do not constitute any offence or where the proceedings
are manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. The present case, in the
considered opinion of this Court, falls within the said
parameters inasmuch as the allegations against the petitioners
are vague and omnibus without any specific material to proceed
against them.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3371 of 2018(9) dt.01-05-2026
11/11
17. Accordingly, in view of the discussions made
hereinabove and having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case as well as the settled legal position, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the continuation of the criminal
proceeding against the present petitioners would amount to
abuse of the process of the Court. The impugned order of
cognizance dated 10.03.2016, so far as it relates to the
petitioners, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is, therefore,
liable to be quashed.
18. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 10.03.2016
passed in Complaint Case No. 2425 C of 2015 (S.C. No. 985 of
2016) by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Bettiah, West Champaran, is hereby quashed so far as the
present petitioners are concerned.
19. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application,
accordingly, stands allowed.
20. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Court concerned forthwith for needful.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-
U T
[ad_1]
Source link
