Patna High Court – Orders
Nand Kishore Mishra And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 30 April, 2026
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53429 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1433 Year-2016 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
1. Nand Kishore Mishra, Son of Late Chandra kant Mishra
2. Indu Devi, Wife of Nand Kishore Mishra. Both are resident of Village-
Bhuskaul, P.O. and P.S.- Sadar, District- Darbhanga.
3. Rahul Kumar Mishra, Son of Nand Kishore Mishra, resident of Village-
Bhuskaul, P.O. and P.S.- Sadar, District- Darbhanga at present residing at
Anand Gujarat, P.O. and P.S.- Anand, District- Anand, Gujarat.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shruti Jha, Wife of Mukesh Kumar Mishra, Daughter of Basudeo Narayan
Jha, resident of Bharatpatti, P.S. and P.O.- Kalwahi, District- Madhubani at
presently residing at Rajeev Nagar, Road No. 13, P.O.- Keshri Nagar,
District Patna- 800024.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Paswan, Advocate
Mr. Amar Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Deepshikha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalan Kumar, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sameer Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Tarun Anand, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
7 30-04-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 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 of the order
dated 13.06.2016 passed by learned Execution Munsif-cum-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53429 of 2018(7) dt.30-04-2026
2/12
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna (hereinafter referred to as
‘Magistrate’), in connection with Complaint Case No. 1433 (C)
of 2016, wherein the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioners, who are in-laws of
the O.P. No.2, and also against the husband of the O.P. No.2.
3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case arises out of
Complaint Case No. 1433 (C) of 2016 instituted by the
complainant (O.P. No.2) alleging that her marriage was
solemnized on 10.05.2015 with Mukesh Kumar Mishra in
accordance with Hindu rites and customs, wherein it is alleged
that a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs along with other articles was given as
dowry. It is further alleged that soon after the marriage, when
the complainant (O.P. No.2) went to her matrimonial home, she
was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and his
family members, including the present petitioners, on account of
alleged non-fulfilment of further demand of a car or Rs. 10
lakhs. The complaint further discloses that during her stay at her
parental home on the occasion of Madhushrawni, the accused
persons reiterated the said demand and extended threats to the
complainant (O.P. No.2). It is the case of the complainant (O.P.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53429 of 2018(7) dt.30-04-2026
3/12
No.2) that on account of such alleged acts of cruelty and dowry
demand, she was subjected to both mental and physical
harassment at the hands of the accused persons.
4. Upon perusal of the materials available on record,
including the complaint petition, solemn affirmation of the
complainant (O.P. No.2) and the statements of witnesses
recorded during inquiry, the learned Magistrate found a prima
facie case and accordingly took cognizance of the offence
punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as well
as under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against
the present petitioners and also against the husband of the O.P.
No.2.
5. Aggrieved by the said order of cognizance, the
petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present
Criminal Miscellaneous Application seeking quashing of the
aforesaid order as well as the entire criminal proceeding arising
therefrom.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
impugned order taking cognizance is wholly illegal, arbitrary
and suffers from complete non-application of judicial mind. It is
submitted that the entire complaint petition is based on vague,
general and omnibus allegations without attributing any specific
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53429 of 2018(7) dt.30-04-2026
4/12
overt act to the present petitioners. Learned counsel submits that
the petitioners, being the father-in-law, mother-in-law and
brother-in-law of the O.P. No.2, have been roped in
mechanically only on account of their relationship with the
husband, which is impermissible in law. He further submits that
even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their
face value and accepted in entirety, no offence under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code or under Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the petitioners.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits
that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the
petitioners would amount to gross abuse of the process of the
Court, as the essential ingredients constituting the alleged
offences are conspicuously absent. He submits that petitioner
no.3 was residing and employed at a distant place and,
therefore, his involvement in the alleged occurrence is highly
improbable. It is also submitted that petitioner no.1 is an aged
person suffering from various ailments, and compelling him to
face the rigours of criminal trial would cause undue hardship.
Learned counsel lastly prays that this Court, in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction may be pleased to quash the impugned
order as well as the entire criminal proceeding against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53429 of 2018(7) dt.30-04-2026
5/12
petitioners.
8. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 opposes the
prayer for quashing and submits that the complaint petition
clearly discloses specific allegations of demand of dowry and
cruelty meted out to the O.P. No.2 soon after her marriage. It is
submitted that the learned Magistrate, upon proper appreciation
of the materials available on record during inquiry, has rightly
found a prima facie case and taken cognizance of the offences
under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3
and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He further submits that at
the stage of cognizance, meticulous examination of evidence is
not required and the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations
can only be tested during trial; hence, the present application is
liable to be dismissed.
9. Learned APP for the State also opposes the prayer
for quashing and submits that the order taking cognizance does
not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, as the same has been
passed on the basis of sufficient materials indicating
commission of cognizable offences.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
upon careful examination of the materials brought on record,
this Court proceeds to consider the issue involved in the present
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53429 of 2018(7) dt.30-04-2026
6/12
application. At the outset, it is necessary to delineate the scope
of inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. It is a settled position of law that
such power is to be invoked with great caution and only in
circumstances where intervention is necessary to prevent misuse
of the judicial process or to advance the cause of justice. At this
stage, the Court is required to assess whether the allegations
made in the complaint, if accepted in their entirety, disclose the
commission of any offence, without undertaking a detailed
evaluation of the evidentiary materials.
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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53429 of 2018(7) dt.30-04-2026
7/12
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
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53429 of 2018(7) dt.30-04-2026
8/12course 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
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.53429 of 2018(7) dt.30-04-2026
9/12
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
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.”
(emphasis supplied)
14. Upon careful consideration of the allegations
made in the complaint petition, this Court finds that the entire
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53429 of 2018(7) dt.30-04-2026
10/12
accusation against the present petitioners is couched in general
and omnibus terms without any specific attribution of overt acts.
The petitioners, being the father-in-law (petitioner no.1),
mother-in-law (petitioner no.2) and brother-in-law (petitioner
no.3) of the O.P. No.2, have been implicated merely on account
of their relationship with the husband. The complaint does not
disclose any particular instance of cruelty or harassment
attributable individually to the petitioners so as to satisfy the
essential ingredients of the offence under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code. The allegations, as they stand, appear to be
sweeping in nature and lack the necessary particulars required to
proceed against the petitioners.
15. It further transpires from the record that petitioner
no.3 was admittedly residing and employed at a distant place,
i.e., Anand in the State of Gujarat, and there is no specific
material indicating his active involvement in the alleged
occurrence. Similarly, petitioner no.1 is stated to be an aged
person suffering from ailments, and no distinct role has been
attributed to him in the commission of the alleged offence. The
absence of specific allegations coupled with the general nature
of accusations creates serious doubt regarding the veracity of
the claims made against the petitioners.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53429 of 2018(7) dt.30-04-2026
11/12
16. In such circumstances, even if the allegations
contained in the complaint are taken at their face value, they do
not prima facie constitute the ingredients of offences under
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act so far as the
present petitioners are concerned. The continuation of the
criminal proceeding against them, therefore, appears to be
unjustified and would amount to an abuse of the process of the
Court rather than serving the ends of justice.
17. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the
well-settled principles 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 Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 1947, wherein illustrative categories were carved out for
exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. One such category is where the allegations
made in the complaint, even if taken at their face value and
accepted in entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused, and another where the
proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or has been
instituted with an ulterior motive. In the considered opinion of
this Court, the case of the present petitioners squarely falls
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53429 of 2018(7) dt.30-04-2026
12/12
within the aforesaid parameters, inasmuch as the allegations are
general in nature and do not disclose the essential ingredients of
the offences alleged.
18. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and
having regard to the settled legal position, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned order taking cognizance
dated 13.06.2016 passed by the learned Execution Munsif-cum-
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna in connection with
Complaint Case No. 1433 (C) of 2016 suffers from non-
application of judicial mind and the continuation of the criminal
proceeding against the present petitioners would amount to
abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, the said order of
cognizance as well as the entire criminal proceeding arising
therefrom, so far as it relates to the present petitioners, is hereby
quashed.
19. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application is,
accordingly, allowed.
20. Let a copy of this order be transmitted forthwith to
the Court concerned for information and necessary compliance.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-
U T
