Patna High Court – Orders
Manoj Yadav And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 24 March, 2026
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20092 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-937 Year-2011 Thana- MADHEPURA COMPALINT CASE
District- Madhepura
======================================================
1. Manoj Yadav S/o Ramjee Yadav,
2. Chanda Devi W/o Manoj Yadav,
3. Sanoj Kumar @ Anuj Kumar S/o Ramjee Yadav,
4. Deep Narayan Yadav S/o Late Luxmi Yadav,
5. Birun Devi @ Biran Devi W/o Deep Narayan Yadav,
6. Prabhash Yadav S/o Deep Narayan Yadav,
7. Sunita Devi W/o Prabhash Yadav,
8. Mukesh Kumar @ Babllu Yadav S/o Deep Narayan Yadav,
9. Khaja Devi W/o Ramjee Yadav,
10. Arti Devi W/o Mukesh Yadav,
11. Subhash Yadav S/o Deep Narayan Yadav,
12. Nutan Devi W/o Subhash Yadav,
All R/o Village- Sahugadh Diwani Tola, P.S.- Madhepura, District-
Madhepura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Nutan Devi W/o Saroj Kumar Yadav, D/o Sadanand Yadav, R/o Village Post
Office Sahugadh, P.S. District- Madhepura at present Village- Bhagwanpur
Tola, P.O.- Sahugadh, P.S.District- Madhepura.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surya Narayan Yadav, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar 3. APP
Mr. Dinesh Prasad Verma, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
6 24-03-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the O.P. No.2 and 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.’) on behalf of the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20092 of 2018(6) dt.24-03-2026
2/10
for quashing the order dated 06.02.2016 passed by learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura (hereinafter referred
to as ‘Magistrate’) in Complaint Case No. C 937 of 2011
wherein the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences
under Sections 498A, 149 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 against the petitioners herein who are in-laws of the O.P.
No.2 and two other persons namely, Saroj Kumar (husband of
O.P. No.2) and Ramjee Yadav (father-in-law of O.P. No.2).
3. The facts of the case, in brief, as emanates from the
complaint petition filed by O.P. No.2, is that the complainant
was married to Saroj Kumar about 6-7 years prior to the
institution of the case according to Hindu rites and rituals. It is
alleged that after the marriage and subsequent ‘Duragaman’,
sufficient gifts and articles were given by her parental family.
However, after some time, all the accused persons allegedly
started demanding a motorcycle as dowry and subjected the
complainant (O.P. No.2) to cruelty, abuse, and physical assault
on account of non-fulfilment of the said demand. It is further
alleged that the complainant (O.P. No.2) gave birth to a male
child during the subsistence of the marriage and continued to
suffer ill-treatment at her matrimonial home. The complaint
further discloses that despite intervention by the complainant’s
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20092 of 2018(6) dt.24-03-2026
3/10
father and efforts made through Panchayati, the accused persons
persisted in their alleged conduct and ultimately the complainant
was allegedly assaulted, driven out of her matrimonial home,
and her belongings worth approximately Rs. 1.5 lakhs were
forcibly taken away. Thereafter, having no alternative, the
complainant (O.P. No.2) instituted the complaint case bearing
Complaint Case No. C 937 of 2011 before the learned
Magistrate.
4. It further appears from the record that initially, by
order dated 20.06.2012, the learned Magistrate, upon inquiry,
found no sufficient material against most of the accused persons
and took cognizance only against two accused persons.
However, in a criminal revision preferred by the complainant
(O.P. No.2 herein), the learned Revisional Court, vide order
dated 03.11.2015, remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Pursuant thereto, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned
order dated 06.02.2016 taking cognizance against the present
petitioners also, which is under challenge in the present
proceeding.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
impugned order dated 06.02.2016 passed by the learned
Magistrate suffers from non-application of judicial mind and has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20092 of 2018(6) dt.24-03-2026
4/10
been passed in a mechanical manner. It is submitted that the
entire complaint petition, even if taken at its face value,
discloses only vague, omnibus and general allegations against
the petitioners without attributing any specific overt act, date,
time or manner of alleged cruelty or demand of dowry. He
further submits that the essential ingredients of offences under
Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code are not made
out against the petitioners. It is submitted by the learned counsel
that the allegations are highly exaggerated and have been
levelled with an ulterior motive to harass and pressurize the
petitioners in a matrimonial dispute and the petitioners herein
have been dragged in this case based only on their relation
rooted with the husband of the O.P. No.2.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits
that the learned Magistrate, upon earlier consideration of the
materials on record, had rightly refused to take cognizance
against the petitioners vide order dated 20.06.2012, finding no
prima facie case against them. However, pursuant to the
revisional order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance
against the petitioners without any fresh material and without
recording any cogent reasons, thereby rendering the impugned
order arbitrary and unsustainable in law. Learned counsel thus
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20092 of 2018(6) dt.24-03-2026
5/10
submits that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the
petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of the Court
and is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.
7. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 submits that the
impugned order dated 06.02.2016 has been passed after due
consideration of the materials available on record and in
compliance with the direction of the Revisional Court. It is
submitted that the complaint petition clearly discloses a
consistent course of conduct involving demand of dowry,
cruelty, assault, and eventual ouster of the O.P. No.2 from her
matrimonial home, and at the stage of cognizance, only a prima
facie case is required to be seen. He further submits that the
allegations cannot be meticulously examined or weighed at this
stage and the truthfulness or otherwise of the accusations is a
matter of trial. Learned counsel thus submits that the petitioners
have been rightly summoned and the present application is
devoid of merit, being an attempt to thwart the legitimate
prosecution, thereby liable to be dismissed.
8. Learned APP for the State fairly submits that the
allegation is entirely based on the acts of co-accused Saroj
Kumar (husband of O.P. No.2) and petitioners are in laws of
O.P. No.2 against whom there is general allegation.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20092 of 2018(6) dt.24-03-2026
6/10
9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned counsel for O.P. No.2 as well as learned APP for the
State and perused the materials available on record. The issue
which arises for consideration is as to whether the allegations
made in the complaint petition, on their face value, constitute a
prima facie case against the petitioners so as to justify
continuation of the criminal proceeding.
10. It is pertinent to note that the court owes a duty to
subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough
scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of
truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the
sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge,
more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial
dispute.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of cases
including Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr., reported in
(2014) 8 SCC 273; K. Subba Rao and Ors. v. State of
Telangana and Ors., reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452; and
Rajesh Sharma and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.,
reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472 wherein it has been observed
that owing to the surge in matrimonial disputes in recent times,
the instances of false implication have markedly increased and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20092 of 2018(6) dt.24-03-2026
7/10
courts must exercise due circumspection while proceeding
against relatives specially when the allegations are general and
omnibus.
12. Relying on the aforesaid judgments, 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
lines.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20092 of 2018(6) dt.24-03-2026
8/10
(emphasis supplied)
13. In the present case, on a careful perusal of the
complaint petition and the statements recorded during inquiry,
this Court finds that the allegations made against the present
petitioners are general and omnibus in nature without specifying
any distinct role or overt act attributable to each of them. The
complaint lacks specific particulars regarding the alleged
demand of dowry, date and manner of assault, and the role
played by the individual petitioners. It further appears that the
learned Magistrate, in the earlier order dated 20.06.2012, had
found no sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners and
had taken cognizance only against two accused persons. In such
circumstances, taking cognizance against the petitioners
subsequently, without any fresh material and without assigning
cogent reasons, prima facie indicates non-application of judicial
mind.
14. It is further pertinent to take note of the order
dated 04.04.2018 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in Criminal Miscellaneous No.4254 of 2016 arising out of the
same complaint case, whereby, upon consideration of the entire
complaint, the proceeding against Ramjee Yadav (petitioner no.
2 therein), who is the father-in-law of the complainant (O.P.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20092 of 2018(6) dt.24-03-2026
9/10
No.2 herein), was quashed. The application against petitioner
no.1 therein, namely Saroj Kumar, the husband of O.P. No.2,
against whom there being specific allegation was disposed of
with liberty to raise all objections before the learned Trial Court
and seek discharge in the matter. The Hon’ble Court, after a
detailed examination of the complaint petition, categorically
held that the allegations were omnibus and general in nature and
no specific role or overt act was attributed to the said accused,
and further that there was no material to constitute an offence
under Sections 498A or 323 of the Indian Penal Code against
him. The said finding, being based on the same set of
allegations, lends support to the contention that the present
petitioners have also been implicated on similar general and
sweeping allegations without any specific material, thereby
rendering the continuation of the criminal proceeding against
them unsustainable in the eyes of law.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and upon an
overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of the opinion that the allegations made against the
present petitioners do not disclose the essential ingredients of
the offences alleged and are primarily general and omnibus in
nature. The continuation of the criminal proceeding against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20092 of 2018(6) dt.24-03-2026
10/10
petitioners, in absence of any specific role or material
particulars, would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.02.2016 passed by
the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate., Madhepura in
Complaint Case No. C 937 of 2011, so far as it relates to the
present petitioners, is hereby set aside and quashed.
16. Accordingly, the present application stands
allowed.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Harish/-
U
