Patna High Court – Orders
Reena Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 18 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60552 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-198 Year-2017 Thana- TEGHRHA District- Begusarai
======================================================
1. Reena Devi W/O Sanjiv Kumar Singh @ Sanjiv Kumar Resident Of Village
- Hemra , Mohan Eghu, Ward No.20, P.S.- Town, Distt.- Begusarai.
2. Vinod Kumar @ Binod Kumar Son Of Late Dashrath Rai Resident Of
Village - Baro Salempur Tola, P.S.- Barauni Garhara O.P., Distt.- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sangita Devi W/O Amit Kumar , D/O Umakant Singh Resident Of Village -
Madhurapur, Puwari Tola, P.S.- Teghra, Distt.- Begusarai.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mrl Ranjan Kr. Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
6 18-03-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The present application is being filed on behalf of
the petitioners for quashing the order of cognizance date
31.10.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Begusarai in which cognizance has been taken under sections
498 (A),494 of Indian Penal Code and also under section 3/4 of
dowry prohibition Act in connection with Teghra P.S.Case No.
198 of 2017.
3. The allegation is that the marriage of the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60552 of 2021(6) dt.18-03-2026
2/8
was solemnized with Amit Kumar in the year 2009. Thereafter,
the allegation have been made against the in-laws as well as the
husband.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
husband is facing the prosecution and the petitioners are married
nanad and unmarried dewar. There is general and omnibus
allegation against the petitioners. He further relies upon the
observation given by by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [2023 SCC
Online SC 1083] and submitted that the petitioners were
implicated only because of their relations with husband of O.P.
No. 2.
“(13) 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 alias Sonam v. State
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60552 of 2021(6) dt.18-03-2026
3/8of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this
Court had occasion to deal with a
similar situation where the High Court
had refused to quash a FIR registered
for various offences, including Section
498A IPC. 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
498A IPC 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60552 of 2021(6) dt.18-03-2026
4/8allegations 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.
14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of
Jharkhand [(2010) 7 SCC 667], this
Court noted that the tendency to
implicate the husband and all his
immediate relations is also not
uncommon in complaints filed under
Section 498A IPC. It was observed that
the Courts have to be extremely careful
and cautious in dealing with these
complaints and must take pragmatic
realities into consideration while
dealing with matrimonial cases, as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60552 of 2021(6) dt.18-03-2026
5/8
allegations of harassment by husband’s
close relations, who were living in
different cities and never visited or
rarely visited the place where
thecomplainant resided, would add an
entirely different complexion and such
allegations would have to be
scrutinised with great care and
circumspection.
15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti
[(2009) 10 SCC 184), this Court
observed that the mere mention of
statutory provisions and the language
thereof, for lodging a complaint, is not
the ‘be all and end all of the matter, as
what is required to be brought to the
notice of the Court is the particulars of
the offence committed by each and
every accused and the role played by
each and every accused in the
commission of that offence. These
observations were made in the context
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60552 of 2021(6) dt.18-03-2026
6/8
of a matrimonial dispute involving
Section 498A IPC.
16. Of more recent origin is the
decision of this Court in Mahmood Ali
v. State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No.
2341 of 2023, decided on 08.08.2023)
on the legal principles applicable
apropos Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therein, it
was observed that when an accused
comes before the High Court, invoking
either the inherent power under Section
482 Cr. P.C. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60552 of 2021(6) dt.18-03-2026
7/8
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.”
5. Learned counsel for the State as well as the
informant vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that there
are serious level of allegations of assault and demand of dowry
against all the accused persons.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, there being no objective material to support the
assertions made by the complaint and the petitioners being in-
laws living a separate life having nothing to do with the day to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60552 of 2021(6) dt.18-03-2026
8/8
day life of the complainant, the order dated 31.10.2017 passed
by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in in connection
with Teghra P.S.Case No. 198 of 2017 is hereby quashed.
7. Accordingly, the application stands allowed.
(Ansul, J)
atul/-
U T
