Patna High Court – Orders
Puja Kumari vs The 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.1988 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-213 Year-2016 Thana- DIGHA District- Patna
======================================================
Puja Kumari, Daughter of Ashok Prasad and Wife of Om Prakash Kumar,
Presently residing at Village- Hirdanbigha, P.S. Telmar, District- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Prachi Priyam, Daughter of Sri Sunil Kumar Singh Resident of Pirmuhani
Gali No. 2 Kadamkuan, P.S. Kadamkuan, Distt. Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Indu Bhushan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar - 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
10 21-04-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned APP for the State.
2. The present application has been under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to
as ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing the order dated 28.06.2017 passed by
the learned S.D.J.M., Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial
Court’) in connection with Digha P.S. Case No.213 of 2016
wherein the learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offence
under Sections 498A, 323, 494 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the accused persons
including the present petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1988 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
2/8
3. The brief facts of the case, as emerge from the
record, are that an F.I.R. bearing Digha P.S. Case No.213 of
2016 was instituted on the basis of a written report submitted by
the informant (O.P. No.2), Prachi Priyam, alleging commission
of offences under Sections 498A, 323, 494/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
against her husband and his family members. The marriage of
the informant(O.P. No.2) was solemnized with Rajiv Kumar
Nirala alias Guddu as love marriage through court on
18.08.2004 and through social rites and rituals on 15.07.2005.
She was blessed with a daughter on 20.02.2006. The informant
(O.P. No.2) alleged that after her marriage with the accused
husband, she was subjected to cruelty, physical assault, and
persistent demand of dowry, including pressure to bring money
from her parental home, and was also threatened with the
husband’s second marriage. It was further alleged that the
husband had developed relations with many woman, but
suspecting the informant, husband filed a divorce case which is
pending in concerned court. She came to know that he had
secretly solemnized a second marriage on 10th July, 2016 with
the petitioner in a temple. On the basis of the said allegations,
investigation was conducted and charge-sheet was submitted.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1988 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
3/8
4. Upon perusal of the materials available on record as
well as the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer,
the learned Trial Court found prima facie case for the offences
under Sections 498A, 323, 494 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act and accordingly took cognizance of the said
offences vide the impugned order dated 28.06.2017 against all
the accused persons including the present petitioner. Aggrieved
by the said order of cognizance, the petitioner has preferred the
present Criminal Miscellaneous Application for quashing of the
same.
5. Upon perusal of the records, it further appears that
the husband of O.P. No.2 has already died during the period of
COVID-19 pandemic, which is a relevant subsequent
development having bearing on the continuance of the present
criminal proceeding.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and is
not named in the F.I.R. Learned counsel further submits that the
implication of the petitioner has been made during investigation
in a mechanical manner without there being any cogent or
reliable material to substantiate the allegation of her alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1988 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
4/8
marriage with the husband of O.P. No.2. It is submitted that the
entire prosecution case, even if taken at its face value, does not
disclose any specific overt act against the petitioner attracting
the ingredients of the offences alleged.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the petitioner is legally married to one Om Prakash Kumar
and their marriage was duly solemnized in the year 2015 in
accordance with Hindu rites and customs and subsequently
registered before the competent authority, pursuant to which a
marriage certificate dated 19.06.2017 has been issued. Learned
counsel submits that the allegation of bigamy under Section 494
of the Indian Penal Code is wholly misconceived and baseless.
He further submits that there is no allegation of demand of
dowry or cruelty against the petitioner so as to attract the
provisions of Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code or
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and the order
taking cognizance has been passed without proper application of
judicial mind, rendering the same liable to be quashed.
8. Learned A.P.P. for the State fairly submits that there
appears to be no specific allegation of demand of dowry or
cruelty against the petitioner and the same is also not supported
by any cogent material collected during investigation.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1988 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
5/8
9. Despite valid service of notice, O.P. No.2 has not
appeared to contest the present application. Accordingly, this
Court proceeds to consider and decide the matter on the basis of
the materials available on record and the submissions advanced
on behalf of the petitioner and the State.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the State, this Court deems it
appropriate to first delineate the scope and ambit of jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It is well settled that the
inherent power of the High Court is to be exercised sparingly,
with circumspection, and only to prevent abuse of the process of
the Court or to secure the ends of justice. While exercising such
jurisdiction, the Court is not required to conduct a roving
inquiry into the truthfulness of the allegations but is to examine
whether the uncontroverted allegations and the materials on
record prima facie disclose the commission of any offence. If
the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not
constitute any offence or where the prosecution appears to be
manifestly attended with mala fide or instituted with an ulterior
motive, the High Court would be justified in quashing the
proceedings.
11. Upon consideration of the entire materials
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1988 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
6/8
available on record, it transpires that the petitioner was
admittedly not named in the F.I.R. and has been implicated only
during the course of investigation without any substantive
material indicating her involvement in the alleged offences. The
record does not disclose any specific overt act of cruelty,
assault, or demand of dowry attributable to the petitioner so as
to attract the ingredients of Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian
Penal Code or Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The allegation of bigamy against the petitioner also appears to
be wholly unsubstantiated, inasmuch as no material has been
collected by the Investigating Officer to establish that the
petitioner had solemnized marriage with the husband of O.P.
No.2, and on the contrary, the marriage certificate brought on
record prima facie indicates that the petitioner is legally married
to another person. In such circumstances, the implication of the
petitioner appears to be casual and without any legal basis, and
the continuation of the criminal proceeding against her would
amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
12. It is pertinent to note that the law with respect to
quashing of criminal proceeding is now well settled that while
considering a prayer to quash the criminal complaint and the
consequential proceedings at the threshold, the Court is required
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1988 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
7/8
to examine whether the allegations made in the complaint along
with materials in support thereof make out a prima facie case to
proceed against the accused or not. The reference to the same
has been made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of
judgments including 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.
13. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
of the opinion that the impugned order taking cognizance dated
28.06.2017 passed by the learned Trial Court so far as it relates
to the present petitioner, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
14. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
28.06.2017 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Patna in connection
with Digha P.S. Case No.213 of 2016 as well as the entire
criminal proceeding arising therefrom, is hereby quashed qua
the petitioner is concerned.
15. Resultantly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous
Application stands allowed. As a consequence, all further
proceedings arising out of Digha P.S. Case No. 213 of 2016,
pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Patna, so far as it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1988 of 2018(10) dt.21-04-2026
8/8
relates to the present petitioner, shall remain quashed.
16. Interim order(s), if any, stands vacated.
17. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary
compliance.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-
U T