Patna High Court
Umesh Kumar Srivastava vs The State Of Bihar on 14 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71318 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-114 Year-2018 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. UMESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA S/O ATAL BIHARI SRIVASTAVA R/O
MOHALLA- GANESH NAGAR COMPLEX, PANDAV NAGAR, NEAR
HANUMAN MANDIR, P.S- GANESH NAGAR, NEW DELHI,
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF BHAURA CHARSE CHAPRA (NAIT
BASTI), P.S- CHAPRA, DISTT.- SARAN.
2. NEELU SRIVASTAVA @ NILU SHRIVASTAVA W/O UMESH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA R/O MOHALLA- GANESH NAGAR COMPLEX,
PANDAV NAGAR, NEAR HANUMAN MANDIR, P.S- GANESH
NAGAR, NEW DELHI, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF BHAURA
CHARSE CHAPRA (NAIT BASTI), P.S- CHAPRA, DISTT.- SARAN.
3. CHANDAN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA @ CHANDAN SHRIVASTAVA S/O
UMESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA R/O MOHALLA- GANESH NAGAR
COMPLEX, PANDAV NAGAR, NEAR HANUMAN MANDIR, P.S-
GANESH NAGAR, NEW DELHI, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
BHAURA CHARSE CHAPRA (NAIT BASTI), P.S- CHAPRA, DISTT.-
SARAN.
4. DEEP SHIKSHA @ SRIVASTAVA RUBI SRIVASTAVA @ DEEPSHIKHA
SHRIVASTAVA D/O UMESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA R/O MOHALLA-
GANESH NAGAR COMPLEX, PANDAV NAGAR, NEAR HANUMAN
MANDIR, P.S- GANESH NAGAR, NEW DELHI, PERMANENT
RESIDENT OF BHAURA CHARSE CHAPRA (NAIT BASTI), P.S-
CHAPRA, DISTT.- SARAN.
5. KISHAN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA @ KRISHNA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
S/O RAM KISHORE SINHA R/O MOHALLA- GANESH NAGAR
COMPLEX, PANDAV NAGAR, NEAR HANUMAN MANDIR, P.S-
GANESH NAGAR, NEW DELHI, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
BHAURA CHARSE CHAPRA (NAIT BASTI), P.S- CHAPRA, DISTT.-
SARAN.
6. SANJIV KUMAR SRIVASTAVA @ SANJEEVA NARAYAN SINHA S/O
LATE JAGDISH NARAYAN SINHA R/O VILLAGE- CHANDWA MORE,
ARA, POLICE STATION- ARA, DISTT.- BHOJPUR.
7. SIMMI SRIVASTAVA W/O SANJIV KUMAR SRIVASTAVA R/O
VILLAGE- CHANDWA MORE, ARA, P.S- ARA, DISTT.- BHOJPUR.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar BIHAR
2. SADHNA SRIVASTAVA W/O BHUSHAN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, R/O
FAJALGANJ, WARD NO. 10, GITAGHAT COLONY SASARAM, P.S-
SASARAM ( MODEL), DISTT.- ROHTAS.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71318 of 2023 dt.14-05-2026
2/5
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjeev Ranjan, Adv.
For the Informant : Mr.Sunil Kr. Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr.Pranav Kumar, APPSS
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 14-05-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated
06.10.2020
passed in Sasaram Town P.S. Case No. 114 of 2018 by
which learned C.J.M, Sasaram had taken cognizance under section
498A read with 34 of the IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act.
3. The present case arises out of a matrimonial dispute
under Section 498A of IPC. The allegation is that the marriage of
the informant with Bhushan Kumar Srivastava was solemnized on
21.12.2017 and after 22 days of her marriage she went with her
husband and mother-in-law to Delhi. Thereafter, it is alleged that
all her in-laws started demanding dowry. She has further alleged
that her sister-in-law runs a dance bar and she also started asking
her to dance in the same. Finally, she had left the matrimonial
house.
4. That it is relevant to state that the petitioner no. 1 is
father in law, petitioner no. 2 is mother in law, petitioner no. 3 is
brother in law, petitioner no. 4 is sister in law, petitioner no. 5 is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71318 of 2023 dt.14-05-2026
3/5
cousin brother in law and petitioner nos. 6 and 7 are persons who
have mediated in settlement of marriage.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
lady developed matrimonial strains with her husband. So far as the
father-in-law is concerned he is suffering from fourth stage of
prostrate cancer. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioners
further submits that the dispute essentially arose on account of
matrimonial discord between the husband and wife. Learned
counsel further submits that the allegations levelled against the
petitioners are vague, general, and omnibus in nature and no
specific overt act has been attributed to them. It is a well-settled
principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2010) 7 SCC
667, Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. reported in (2012) 10 SCC
741, Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. reported in (2018) 10 SCC
472 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar reported
in (2022) 6 SCC 599 held that where allegations under Section
498A IPC against the relatives of the husband are general, vague,
and omnibus in nature without specific allegations of overt acts,
continuation of the criminal proceeding amounts to gross abuse of
the process of the Court. Consequently, where the prosecution
itself is unsustainable, any coercive process, including issuance of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71318 of 2023 dt.14-05-2026
4/5
Non-Bailable Warrants or insistence upon routine personal
appearance of such relatives, becomes legally unsustainable and
contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court
where the Non-Bailable Warrant has been quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the informant States that Non-
Bailable Warrant have been issued against the accused persons. It
is further submitted that there is direct allegation against the
Petitioner No. 4 that she forced the complainant to dance in the
bar. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have not
appeared in the Maintenance Case and the complainant has been
contesting the case for last about nine years. It is also submitted
that some compensation may be awarded to the informant and the
learned Trial Court is not proceeding with the case against the
husband and that must be proceeded.
7. Learned counsel for the informant and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed
quashing of the order of cognizance dated 06.10.2020.
8. The court on perusal of the record finds that the
allegations are general and omnibus in nature. So far as the
appearance of these petitioners in the maintenance case is
concerned, this court without looking at the petition of the
matrimonial case is sure that these petitioners will not be a party
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71318 of 2023 dt.14-05-2026
5/5
to the maintenance case that is against the husband and the
husband to take all the steps against her. So far as the issue of
compensation is concerned, the parties are in the process of getting
the case adjudicated.
9. Considering the fact that the allegations are vague and
general in nature and placing reliance upon the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 1083 and
Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2010) 7 SCC
667, the proceedings are hereby quashed.
10. In such view of the matter, the order of cognizance
dated 06.10.2022 passed in connection with Sasaram Town P.S.
Case No. 114 of 2018 by the learned C.J.M, Sasaram is quashed so
far as the petitioners are concerned.
11. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.
(Ansul, J)
abhishekkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 20.05.2026 Transmission Date
