Patna High Court – Orders
Santosh Kumar Yadav @ Santosh Kumar @ … vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 7 July, 2026
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.439 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2014 Thana- CHAND District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Santosh Kumar Yadav @ Santosh Kumar @ Guddu son of Haridwar Yadav,
resident of Village- Chand, P.S.- Chand, District- Kaimur Bhabua at present
residing at New Majari Colliery, Chaitanya Colony, Q- C- 148, Shivaji Nagar,
P.S. Majri, P.O. Shivaji Nagar, District- Chadrapur, Maharastra, Pin Code-
442503.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anita Kumari, Daughter of Bimal Prasad Singh, resident of Village-
Bhatwalia, P.S.- Kudra, District- Kaimur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 1336 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2014 Thana- CHAND District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
1. Haridwar Yadav @ Haridwar Singh Yadav son of late Jhumri Yadav
2. Fulmati Devi wife of Haridwar Yadav
3. Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Yadav son of Haridwar Yadav all are
residents of village - Chand, P.S. - Chand, District - Kaimur Bhabua at
present residing at New Majari Collier, Chaitanya Colony, Q - C - 148,
Shivaji Nagar, P.S. Majri, P.O. Shivaji Nagar, District Chandrapur,
Maharastra, Pin Code - 442503.
4. Kiran Devi @ Kiran Devi wife of Manoj Kumar
5. Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Rajendra Yadav son of Rajendra Yadav Both are
residents of Majari, P.S. Majri, P.O. Shivaji Nagar, District Chandrapur,
Maharastra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anita Kumari Daughter of Bimal Prasad Singh resident of Village -
Bhatwalia, P.S. - Kudra, District - Kaimur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 439 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Vishwa Shri Rajendra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, APP
Mr. Nagendra Prasad Yadav, Advocate
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.439 of 2018(13) dt.07-07-2026
2/12
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 1336 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Vishwa Shri Rajendra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar -1, APP
Mr Nagendra Prasad Yadav, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
13 07-07-2026
Reg.:-CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.439 of 2018
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned
APP for the State.
2. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 06.09.2017 passed by
learned Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabua in Cr. Revision No.
95 of 2017 as well as the order dated 27.04.2017 passed by
learned A.C.J.M.-V, Bhabua in Chand P.S. Case No. 36 of 2014.
3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that this case may be disposed of with liberty
to the petitioner to take all the points as raised in this petition,
before the learned Trial Court at appropriate stage in accordance
with law.
4. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel of
O.P. No.2 have no objection to this prayer of the petitioner.
5. In view of the above, this case stands disposed of
with liberty to the petitioner, as prayed for.
Reg.:-CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 1336 of 2018
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.439 of 2018(13) dt.07-07-2026
3/12
APP for the State.
7. The present Criminal Miscellaneous application has
been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for quashing the order dated 06.09.2017 passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Criminal
Revision No. 95 of 2017, whereby the revision application
preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 27.04.2017
has been rejected, and further for quashing the order dated
27.04.2017 passed by the learned A.C.J.M.-V, Kaimur at
Bhabhua arising out of Chand P.S. Case No. 36 of 2014,
whereby the petitioners’ discharge application has been
dismissed.
8. Earlier, vide order dated 22.06.2026, the present
quashing application with respect to petitioner no. 2, namely,
Fulmati Devi has already been dismissed as withdrawn since
she died during the pendency of the case.
9. The prosecution case, as set out in the FIR., is that
the marriage of the informant (O.P. No.2) with Santosh Kumar
Yadav (co-accused) was solemnized in the year 2004. At the
time of marriage, sufficient cash, ornaments, household articles
and a motorcycle were allegedly given as gift. It is alleged that
after the marriage, the O.P No.2 was subjected to cruelty by her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.439 of 2018(13) dt.07-07-2026
4/12
husband and in-laws on account of dissatisfaction with the
articles given in marriage. Subsequently, the husband allegedly
demanded a four-wheeler car and, upon non-fulfilment of the
said demand, the O.P No.2 was subjected to physical and mental
cruelty by her husband and petitioners herein. It is further
alleged that when O.P. No.2 came to know about the proposed
second marriage of her husband and protested, she was
assaulted by her husband and petitioners and was driven out of
her matrimonial home after snatching her clothes and jewellery.
On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, an FIR bearing Chand
P.S. Case No. 36 of 2014 was instituted under section 498A read
with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against present
petitioners and husband of O.P. No.2 on 16.06.2014.
10. Upon completion of investigation, the
Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet under Section
498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against accused
persons except petitioner nos. 4 and 5. Thereafter, the learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kaimur at Bhabhua, vide order
dated 04.09.2015, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences
against the petitioners and husband of O.P. No.2. The petitioners
thereafter preferred an application for discharge. However, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.439 of 2018(13) dt.07-07-2026
5/12
learned A.C.J.M.-V, Kaimur at Bhabhua, vide order dated
27.04.2017, rejected the prayer for discharge. Aggrieved by the
said order, the petitioners preferred Criminal Revision No. 95 of
2017 before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Kaimur at
Bhabhua. The learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated
06.09.2017, dismissed the revision application at the stage of
admission on the ground that allegation as made FIR gets
support from statements of material witnesses mentioned in
paras 2, 3, 4 and 5 of case diary. Aggrieved thereby, the
petitioners have preferred the present application under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the
orders dated 27.04.2017 and 06.09.2017, as well as the entire
criminal proceeding arising out of Chand P.S. Case No. 36 of
2014 insofar as the surviving petitioners are concerned.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the impugned orders dated 27.04.2017 and 06.09.2017 have
been passed in a routine and mechanical manner without proper
appreciation of the materials available on record. Learned
Counsel further submits that the allegations made in the FIR are
vague, omnibus and general in nature and no specific overt act
has been attributed to any of the petitioners. The petitioners
have been roped in merely because they are the relatives of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.439 of 2018(13) dt.07-07-2026
6/12
husband. He further submits that petitioner nos.1 and 3 are
father-in-law and brother-in-law of O.P. No.2 respectively, and
petitioner nos. 4 and 5, who are the married sister-in-law and her
husband respectively residing separately, were found innocent
during investigation, yet cognizance was taken against them
mechanically.
12. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the
marriage between O.P. No.2 and her husband had already been
dissolved by an ex parte decree of divorce dated 23.07.2013,
much prior to the institution of the present FIR., and the present
prosecution is nothing but a counterblast to the said decree. It is,
thus, submitted that continuation of the criminal proceeding
against the surviving petitioners would amount to an abuse of
the process of the Court and, accordingly, the orders dated
27.04.2017 and 06.09.2017, as well as the entire criminal
proceeding arising out of Chand P.S. Case No. 36 of 2014
deserves to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court.
13. Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 submits that the
materials collected during investigation, including the
allegations made in the FIR and the statements of the witnesses
in case diary, prima facie disclose the commission of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.439 of 2018(13) dt.07-07-2026
7/12
offences alleged by the petitioners. Learned counsel further
submits that O.P. No.2 has challenged the ex parte decree of
divorce, which is pending for consideration. He lastly, submits
that at this stage, a meticulous appreciation of evidence is
impermissible and hence, the present application, being devoid
of merit, be dismissed.
14. Learned APP for the State conceded that the
petitioners are the in-laws of the O.P. No.2 and further submits
that this Court may pass appropriate order in the interest of
justice.
15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
as well as the learned APP for the State, and upon perusal of the
materials available on record, the principal question which
arises for consideration before this Court is whether, in the facts
and circumstances of the present case, the impugned orders
dated 27.04.2017 and 06.09.2017 rejecting the petitioners’
prayer for discharge warrant interference in exercise of the
inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.
16. At the outset, it is well settled that the inherent
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Criminal
Procedure Code is to be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection and in the exceptional circumstances. While
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.439 of 2018(13) dt.07-07-2026
8/12
exercising such jurisdiction, the Court is required to assess
whether the uncontroverted allegations in the complaint
petition/FIR and the materials brought on record, taken at their
face value, prima facie disclose the commission of the alleged
offence against the accused and make out a prima facie case for
proceeding against them. If the allegations are so absurd and
inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, or
where the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and
has been instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, the same is liable to be quashed to secure the ends of
justice.
17. 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. in
matrimonial offences. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.439 of 2018(13) dt.07-07-2026
9/12particular 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-A 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
498-A 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.439 of 2018(13) dt.07-07-2026
10/12ulterior 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.”
18. In the present case, this Court has carefully perused
submission of parties as well as materials available on records. It
transpires that except making general and omnibus allegations
against present petitioners, no specific overt act or distinct role
has been attributed to the present petitioners. The allegations
regarding demand of dowry and cruelty are vague in nature and
do not disclose as to which of the petitioners had made the
alleged demand or subjected the O.P. No.2 to cruelty. The
petitioners are the father-in-law, brother-in-law, married sister-in-
law and the husband of the married sister-in-law of O.P. No.2. It
further appears from the record that petitioner nos. 4 and 5, who
are admittedly residing separately, were found innocent during
investigation, yet cognizance was taken against them.
19. It further transpires from the materials on record
that the marriage between the O.P. No.2 and her husband had
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.439 of 2018(13) dt.07-07-2026
11/12
already been dissolved by an ex parte decree of divorce dated
23.07.2013, whereas the present FIR came to be instituted
thereafter as a counterblast of divorce decree.
20. The Supreme Court has consistently held that in
matrimonial disputes there is an increasing tendency to implicate
all the relatives of the husband on the basis of vague and
omnibus allegations. It has been held that criminal proceedings
against the relatives of the husband cannot be permitted to
continue in the absence of specific allegations disclosing their
individual role, and that the High Court would be justified in
exercising its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process
of the Court. Likewise, in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan
Lal and Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that where the allegations, even if taken
at their face value, do not prima facie constitute the alleged
offence or where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fides, the High Court may exercise its inherent
jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice.
21. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the
facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the allegations against the surviving petitioners are wholly
general, omnibus and bereft of any specific material indicating
their individual involvement and hence, continuation of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.439 of 2018(13) dt.07-07-2026
12/12
criminal proceeding against the surviving petitioners would,
therefore, amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
22. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.04.2017
passed by the learned A.C.J.M.-V, Kaimur at Bhabhua and the
order dated 06.09.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Kaimur at Bhabhua in Criminal Revision No. 95 of 2017 are
hereby set aside. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding
arising out of Chand P.S. Case No. 36 of 2014 is quashed qua
petitioner nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5.
23. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application
with respect to petitioner nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 is, accordingly,
allowed.
24. Interim order(s), if any, stands vacated.
25. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Court concerned forthwith for needful.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-
U T
