Patna High Court – Orders
Pradhuman Lal And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 7 April, 2026
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17188 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-394 Year-2011 Thana- BHOJPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Bhojpur
======================================================
1. Pradhuman Lal, Son of Late Phulena Lal,
2. Usha Devi, Wife of Pradhuman Lal,
3. Sanjeet Kumar, Son of Pradhuman Lal,
4. Santosh Lal, Son of Sri Vijay Lal,
5. Geeta Devi, Wife of Santosh Lal, Resident of Village- Majharia, P.S.- Buxar
Industrial District- Buxar. Presently P.W.D. Quarter, P.S.- Buxar, District-
Buxar (As per complaint residing at Mohalla- Nai Bazar, P.S.- Buxar,
District- Buxar.)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anjali Devi @ Jyoti Devi, D/o Birendra Kumar Sinha, Village- Teghara,
P.S.- Bihiya, Distt- Bhojpur Ara. Presently residing at Mohalla- Nawadah at
Ara in quarter of P.H.E.D. at Ara Town, District- Bhojpur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Nandan Sahay, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nityanand, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Akash Kr. Mishra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
11 07-04-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
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.’) for quashing the order dated
22.12.2017 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhojpur at Ara
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Magistrate’) in Trial No.3127 of 2011
arising out of Complaint Case No.394 (C) of 2011 wherein
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17188 of 2018(11) dt.07-04-2026
2/11
learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition filed
under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. by the petitioners herein.
3. The genesis of the present case arises out of
Complaint Case No.394 (C) of 2011, which was instituted on
the basis of a complaint dated 23.03.2011 filed by O.P. No. 2
against her husband and his family members, including the
present petitioners, alleging commission of offences under
Sections 498A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. As
per the complaint, the marriage of the complainant (O.P. No.2)
was solemnized with the husband, Deepak Kumar, in the year
2008, and at the time of marriage, cash, gifts, and other articles
were given as per the financial capacity of her family. It has
been alleged that after the marriage, the accused persons,
including the present petitioners, started demanding additional
dowry of Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle, and upon non-
fulfilment of the said demand, the O.P. No.2 was subjected to
physical and mental cruelty. The complaint further discloses that
despite intervention by her parental family on earlier occasions,
the alleged harassment continued, and ultimately, she was
compelled to leave her matrimonial home and take shelter at her
parental house. The petitioners, who are the father-in-law,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17188 of 2018(11) dt.07-04-2026
3/11
mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and distant relatives (Mausa and
Mausi) of the husband of O.P. No.2, have been arrayed as
accused in the said complaint. Upon filing of the complaint,
cognizance for the offences under Section 498A and 379 of the
Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act was taken against the accused persons,
including the present petitioners.
4. It appears from the record that after appearance in
the case, the present petitioners filed an application for
discharge under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C., stating therein that
no prima facie case is made out against them and that they have
been implicated on the basis of general and omnibus allegations
without any specific overt act. The learned Magistrate, however,
upon consideration of the materials available on record and the
evidence adduced before charge, rejected the said discharge
petition vide the impugned order dated 22.12.2017. Being
aggrieved by the said order of rejection of discharge, the
petitioners have preferred the present Criminal Miscellaneous
Application seeking quashing of the impugned order as well as
the entire criminal proceeding against them.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
impugned order dated 22.12.2017 rejecting the discharge
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17188 of 2018(11) dt.07-04-2026
4/11
petition, suffers from non-application of judicial mind,
inasmuch as the learned Magistrate failed to consider that the
allegations made in the complaint are vague, general and
omnibus in nature, without attributing any specific role or overt
act to the present petitioners. Learned counsel further submits
that the petitioners are merely in-laws and distant relatives of
the husband, some of whom were residing separately, and have
been falsely implicated due to matrimonial discord between the
husband and the O.P. No.2. It is further submitted that even the
materials brought on record during inquiry do not disclose any
prima facie case against the petitioners.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits
that the witnesses examined before charge does not substantiate
the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the
petitioners. It is pointed out that neither the complainant nor her
parents have come forward to depose in support of the
complainant (O.P. No.2). Learned counsel submits that the
learned Magistrate has mechanically rejected the discharge
petition under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. without properly
appreciating the absence of specific allegations and the settled
legal position that distant relatives should not be roped in on the
basis of bald allegations. Learned counsel thus submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17188 of 2018(11) dt.07-04-2026
5/11
continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners
would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
7. Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 submits that the
impugned order dated 22.12.2017 has been passed after due
consideration of the materials available on record and does not
suffer from any illegality. It is submitted that the complaint as
well as the evidence adduced during inquiry clearly disclose a
prima facie case against the petitioners, who have actively
participated in subjecting the O.P. No.2 to cruelty in connection
with demand of dowry. He further submits that at the stage of
discharge under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C., the Court is only
required to see whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed, and
not to meticulously examine the evidence. Learned counsel thus
submits that the petitioners have rightly been directed to face
trial and the present application is liable to be dismissed.
8. Learned APP for the State submits that the
impugned order does not call for any interference, as the learned
Magistrate has rightly found sufficient materials to proceed
against the petitioners. It is submitted that at the stage of
consideration of discharge, truthfulness of the allegations cannot
be examined in detail. Learned APP thus submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17188 of 2018(11) dt.07-04-2026
6/11
application is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties as
well as learned APP for the State and upon perusal of the
materials available on record, the core issue that arises for
consideration in the present case is whether the materials on
record disclose sufficient grounds for proceeding against the
petitioners for the offences alleged.
10. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it would
be apposite to consider the scope of Section 245 of the Cr.P.C.
In a warrant case under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. instituted
otherwise than on a police report i.e. on complaint, the
Magistrate is required to discharge the accused if, upon taking
all the evidence referred to under Section 244 of the Cr.P.C., no
case is made out. A criminal Court is expected under Section
245(1) of the Cr.P.C. only to consider whether such a case has
been made out ‘which, if unrebutted, would warrant a
conviction’. The quality of consideration of the material
available before the Court at a later stage of proceeding i.e. at
the stage of deciding whether the accused deserves to be
convicted or acquitted is totally different and more exhaustive.
The quality of consideration at the stage of Sections 203 & 204
of the Cr.P.C. and Sections 245 & 246 of the Cr.P.C. are
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17188 of 2018(11) dt.07-04-2026
7/11
different. At this stage, the Court is not required to conduct a
meticulous appreciation of evidence, but it must be satisfied that
there exist sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused.
Conversely, where the allegations are vague, unsupported by
material evidence, or do not disclose the essential ingredients of
the offence, the accused is entitled to discharge.
11. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17188 of 2018(11) dt.07-04-2026
8/11concern 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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17188 of 2018(11) dt.07-04-2026
9/11to 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.”
12. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17188 of 2018(11) dt.07-04-2026
10/11lines.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. Having considered the rival submissions and on
perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that
the allegations made in the complaint against the present
petitioners are general and omnibus in nature, without
specifying any particular overt act attributable to them. The
petitioners are admittedly the in-laws and distant relatives of the
husband, and there is nothing on record to indicate their direct
involvement in the alleged occurrence. Further, the evidence
adduced before charge does not prima facie establish the
essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the
petitioners herein. In such circumstances, allowing the criminal
proceeding to continue against the petitioners would amount to
abuse of the process of the Court.
14. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and
upon careful consideration of the entire materials available on
record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned
Magistrate has not appreciated material aspects of the case
while rejecting the discharge petition. The impugned order,
therefore, warrants interference by this Court, as continuation of
the criminal proceeding against the present petitioners, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, would not be justified.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17188 of 2018(11) dt.07-04-2026
11/11
15. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
22.12.2017 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Bhojpur at Ara in Trial
No.3127 of 2011 arising out of Complaint Case No.394 (C) of
2011, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section
245 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected, is hereby quashed.
16. Resultantly, the entire criminal proceeding, so far
as it relates to the present petitioners, also stands quashed.
17. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application,
accordingly, stands allowed.
18. Let a copy of this Order be communicated to the
Court concerned forthwith.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-
U T