Patna High Court – Orders
Kunti Devi And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 21 April, 2026
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26630 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1996 Year-2016 Thana- WEST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT
District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Kunti Devi, W/o Sri Yadolal Sah Keshari,
2. Yadolal Sah Keshari @ Yadav lal Sah, S/o Late Raghunath Sah,
3. Shyamsundar Keshari, S/o Sri Yadolal Sah Keshari,
4. Brijkishore Keshari @ Nanhaki Keshari, S/o Sri Yadolal Sah Keshari,
5. Prem Chandra Keshari, W/o Late Raghunath Sah,
6. Hiralal Keshari, S/o Late Raghunath Sah, All Residents of Vill.- Bhaisalotan
Pipra Kothi, P.S.- Balmikinagar, District- West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Bindu Devi, W/o Munna Prasad Keshari D/o Harendra Prasad Keshari, R/o
Chanpatia Bin Tola, Dhath Chowk, Ward No. 3, P.S.- Chanpatia, District-
West Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vinod Shankar Modi, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
10 21-04-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as
learned APP for the State.
2. This application has been filed for quashing of the
order dated 30.05.2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned
Order’) passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran (hereinafter referred to as
‘Trial Court’) in Complaint Case No. 1996-C of 2016 (Trial No.
1208 of 2017), whereby cognizance has been taken and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26630 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
2/11
summons have been issued against the accused persons
including the present petitioners to face trial for the offences
punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the
complainant (O.P. No.2) was married to Munna Prasad Keshari
on 06.05.2013 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, and
sufficient cash, gold ornaments and other articles as gifts were
given by her father as per his capacity. O.P. No.2 alleged that
after a month of marriage, her husband was appointed on the
post of government teacher, thereafter, the accused persons,
including the husband and his family members (petitioners
herein), started subjecting the O.P. No.2 to cruelty in connection
with demand of a Bullet motorcycle and a sum of Rs.
2,00,000/-. Upon her failure to fulfill the said demand due to the
financial incapacity of her parental family, she was allegedly
subjected to physical and mental torture and was threatened that
her husband would contract a second marriage. O.P. No.2 has
further alleged that when her father and brother intervened, she
was driven out of her matrimonial home. Subsequently, her
father arranged Rs. 50,000/- and paid the same to the accused
persons, whereafter she was taken back, but the alleged acts of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26630 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
3/11
cruelty continued. It is further alleged that she suffered
miscarriage, due to the assault of accused person including
petitioners and ultimately was ousted from matrimonial home
after snatching her stridhan. It is further the case of the
prosecution that on 11.11.2016, the accused persons came to her
parental house and attempted to coerce her into signing blank
papers with the intention of facilitating her husband’s second
marriage. On the basis of these allegations, O.P. No.2 has
lodged a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
bettiah, which was transferred to the file of the learned Trial
Court.
4. Upon perusal of the complaint petition, statement
of the O.P. No.2 on solemn affirmation and the statements of
three enquiry witnesses examined in support of the complaint,
the learned Trial Court found prima facie case and accordingly
took cognizance of the offences under Section 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
against the accused persons including the petitioners herein and
issued summons to face trial vide the impugned order dated
30.05.2017. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have preferred
the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application for quashing of
the same.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26630 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
4/11
5. Petitioner No.1 is the mother in law, petitioner No.2
in father in law, petitioner No.3 is the Bhaisur (elder brother in-
Law), petitioner No. 4 is brother in law and petitioner No. 5 and
6 are uncle in Law of the O.P. No.2.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that the impugned order is wholly illegal,
arbitrary and amounts to abuse of the process of the Court.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner No.1 and
petitioner No.2 are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of O.P.
No.2 respectively and other petitioners are also relatives of the
husband of O.P. No.2. They have been falsely implicated in the
present case only on the basis of general, vague and omnibus
allegations without there being any specific overt act attributed
to them. He further submitted that even from a bare perusal of
the complaint petition as well as the statements recorded during
enquiry, the specific allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty
are primarily against the husband, and the entire family has been
roped in with an oblique motive.
7. Learned counsel of Petitioners further submits that
the dispute arises out of normal matrimonial discord between
the O.P. No.2 and her husband, has been given a criminal colour,
and continuation of the criminal proceeding against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26630 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
5/11
petitioners would be nothing but misuse of the process of law.
Learned counsel further submits that the provisions of Section
498-A Indian Penal Code are often misused to harass the
relatives of the husband, and in the absence of any specific
allegation, the petitioners ought not to be compelled to face the
rigours of criminal trial. It is thus submitted that the impugned
order taking cognizance as well as the entire criminal
proceeding, so far as it relates to the petitioners, be quashed in
exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No.2
submits that the impugned order has been passed after due
application of judicial mind and upon consideration of the
materials available on record. Learned counsel further submits
that the complaint petition, the statement of the O.P. No.2 on
solemn affirmation, as well as the statements of the enquiry
witnesses, clearly disclose a prima facie case against all the
accused persons including the petitioners herein.
9. Learned counsel of O.P. No.2 further submits that
the allegations made in the complaint petition specifically
disclose that O.P. No.2 was subjected to continuous physical and
mental cruelty in connection with demand of dowry, and all the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26630 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
6/11
accused persons, being members of the matrimonial family,
actively participated in such acts. The nature of allegations,
including assault, ouster from matrimonial home,
misappropriation of stridhan and coercion, cannot be said to be
vague or omnibus at this stage, and the same require proper
appreciation during trial. It is thus submitted that the present
application does not warrant any interference by this Hon’ble
Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is liable to be dismissed.
10. Learned APP for the State conceded that
petitioners are in-laws of O.P. No.2 and the complaint petition
has been filed in the year 2016 by O.P. No.2 due to allegation of
dowry torture by her husband and in-laws. He submits to pass
appropriate order in facts and Circumstances of the case in the
ends of justice.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties as
well as the learned A.P.P. for the State and upon perusal of the
materials available on record, it appears that the present case
arises out of Complaint Case No. 1996-C of 2016 instituted by
O.P No.2 alleging demand of dowry and subjecting her to
cruelty by her husband and his family members (petitioners
herein). The allegations, as made in the complaint petition,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26630 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
7/11
relate to demand of a Bullet motorcycle and a sum of Rs.
2,00,000/-, physical and mental harassment, assault leading to
miscarriage, and subsequent ouster of the complainant from her
matrimonial home. The issue which arises for consideration in
the present case is as to “whether the impugned order of taking
cognizance warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure”.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Abhishek v. State
of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2023) 16 SCC 666, has
elaborately considered the issue relating to quashing of criminal
proceedings in matrimonial offences insofar as they pertain to
the relatives of the husband, and has held 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
[Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar,
(2022) 6 SCC 599 : (2022) 2 SCC
(Cri) 684] , 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26630 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
8/11498-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.”
13. In the present case, this court finds that the
allegations relate to demand of dowry and consequent cruelty.
The allegations, insofar as the present petitioners are concerned,
who are the relatives of the husband of O.P. No.2, are general
and omnibus in nature and lack specific particulars as to the role
played by each of them in the alleged occurrence. It further
transpires that the present petitioners have been implicated in a
sweeping manner without any distinct or specific overt act
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26630 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
9/11
attributed to them.
14. Upon a careful reading of the complaint petition
and the statements recorded during enquiry does not disclose
any specific instance or particular act of cruelty or harassment
committed by these petitioners so as to prima facie attract the
ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code. The allegations appear to be generalized in nature
without indicating the individual role and involvement of each
of the petitioners.
15. The settled legal position, as consistently laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is that in such cases, the
relatives should not be mechanically roped in on the basis of
vague and omnibus allegations. The Court has repeatedly
cautioned that criminal proceedings should not be permitted to
continue in the absence of specific allegations demonstrating
active participation of the accused persons, particularly when
such implication appears to be on account of their relationship
with the principal accused, as the same would amount to misuse
of the process of law.
16. It is well settled that, while adjudicating a prayer
for quashing of a criminal proceeding at the threshold, the Court
must confine itself to an examination of whether the allegations
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26630 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
10/11
made in the complaint, when taken at their face value and read
in conjunction with the materials on record, prima facie disclose
the commission of any offence so as to justify continuation of
the proceedings against the accused. This settled position of law
has been consistently affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a
catena of decisions, including State of Haryana & Ors. v.
Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and
Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.,
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947.
17. In view of the discussing made hereinabove and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
of the considered view that continuation of the criminal
proceeding against the present petitioners would be an abuse of
the process of the Court and would not serve the ends of justice,
particularly when the materials on records do not disclose the
essential ingredients of the alleged offences so far as regards to
petitioners herein.
18. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
30.05.2017, passed in Complaint Case No. 1996-C of 2016 by
learned Trial Court so far as it relates to the petitioners herein, is
hereby quashed.
19. Resultantly, the entire criminal proceeding arising
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26630 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
11/11
thereform qua the petitioners herein stands set aside.
20. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application
is, accordingly, allowed.
21. The Interim Order, if any, is vacated.
22. Let a copy of this Order be communicated to the
concerned Court forthwith.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-
U T