Kumkum Devi vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56437 of 2022
CNR No. BRHC010797532022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-668 Year-2020 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
1. Kumkum Devi Wife of Nand Kishore Prasad Resident of Kaimashikoh,
(kaua khoh) P.S.- Chowk, Diistrict- Patna
2. Nand Kishore Prasad Son of Late Janak Lal @ Janak Lal Prasad Resident of
Kaimashikoh, (kaua khoh) P.S.- Chowk, Diistrict- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Priti Kumari Wife of Madhusudan Prasad Presently residing at Sai Takiya,
Jalla Road, P.S.- Alamganj, P.O.- Gulzarbagh, District- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Indu Bhushan, Advocate
Ms. Priyanka Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Arvind Kumar Pradhan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-10-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
APP for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
2. By way of the present application, prayer has
been made for quashing of order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the
learned J.M.-2nd Class, Patna City in Complaint Case No. 668
of 2020 whereby and whereunder cognizance was taken for the
offence under Sections 498(A) of the IPC and Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56437 of 2022 dt.29-10-2026
2/7
3. The short facts of the case are that O.P. No. 2
got married with son of the petitioners on 07.03.2014. It is
alleged that the petitioners and other co-accused persons
demanded Rs. 5 lakh as dowry and due to its non-fulfillment
they started abusing and assaulting the O.P. No. 2. Later on,
parents of O.P. No. 2 gave Rs. 5 lakh to save the marriage but
despite receiving the amount, they refused to take her and their
daughter back and accused persons later threatened and
assaulted her for refusing to sign divorce paper.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted, at the outset that the petitioners are old and ailing
mother-in-law and father-in-law of the O.P. No. 2, who are both
aged above 70 years and the complaint discloses general and
omnibus allegations against these petitioners. The attention of
this Court has been invited to contents of the complaint which
indicate that general allegations of demand for dowry and acts
of torture have been levelled.
5. It has also been submitted that the O.P. No. 2
did not take any concrete steps for filing of an FIR and found it
convenient to file the present complaint. During her statement
on S.A., the complainant/O.P. No. 2 has mostly confined her
allegations against her husband and so far as the other accused

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56437 of 2022 dt.29-10-2026
3/7
persons including the present petitioners are concerned, the
allegations are mostly general and omnibus in nature. To a
specific query made by the Court, she has admitted the fact that
since 30.05.2014, she has been continuously residing at her
paternal house along with her daughter. The marriage had taken
place on 07.03.2014 and the present complaint case came to be
lodged at a very belated stage on 12.11.2020 and despite the
admission that since 30.05.2014, the petitioner had been living
at her paternal home, no complaint or even a s anha was lodged
during the intervening period between 07.03.2014 to the date of
filing of the present complaint i.e. 12.11.2020.
6. Learned counsel has further contended that the
enquiry witnesses also happen to be the immediate family
members and neighbours of the O.P. No. 2 and it is admitted by
these witnesses also that there had been no litigation between
the parties earlier. It has thus been submitted that no offence
under Section 498(A) of the IPC would be made out as against
these petitioners, who never interfered in the day-to-day affairs
of the O.P. No. 2 and her husband. Moreover, in the backdrop of
the facts alleged, there was no occasion for such interference as
the O.P. No. 2, as per her own averment, had been staying at her
paternal home since the year 2014 itself.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56437 of 2022 dt.29-10-2026
4/7
7. It is further pointed out that no specific
allegations against these petitioners have been levelled in the
entire complaint and the S.A. and thus, it is abundantly clear
that these petitioners have been implicated only for the purposes
of causing undue harassment to the family.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
O.P. No. 2, while opposing the present application has submitted
that the allegations constitute the offences as alleged and
moreover, the merits of the allegations are not to be gone into at
the stage of taking of cognizance, as such, the order impugned
does not warrant any interference.
9. I have heard rival contentions of both the parties
and have also gone through the materials that have been placed
on record. It is a fact that the petitioners are the mother-in-law
and father-in-law of the O.P. No. 2 and they are both in the age
bracket of above 70 years. Upon perusal of the documents, it
also appears that no specific allegations have been carved out as
against these petitioners rather allegations are apparently
general and omnibus in nature.
10. This Court has also gone through statement of
the complainant on S.A. and it becomes evident from a perusal
of the same that the O.P. No. 2 has been staying at her mayka

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56437 of 2022 dt.29-10-2026
5/7
since 30.05.2014 and most of her allegations are confined to her
husband. There seems to be grievances with regard to the fact
that her husband and her in-laws did not come to meet her or her
daughter nor paid her expenses. This Court has also noticed the
fact that the present case came to be filed only in the year 2020
although, O.P. No. 2 has herself admitted that her marriage had
taken place on 07.03.2014 and since 30.05.2014, she had been
staying at her paternal home.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held through
various judicial pronouncements including that of Preeti Gupta
Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 to the
present day of Kahkashan Kausar and Ors. vs. State of Bihar
and Ors. reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 and Dara Laxmi
Narayana Vs. State of Telangana reported in (2025) 3 SCC
735, that in cases arising out of matrimonial disputes, there is a
tendency to rope in the family members and relatives of the
husband. As such, the Courts should be extremely circumspect
while considering their applications under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. This Court would gainfully refer to the case of
Kahkashan Kausar (supra) , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held in paragraph 21 as follows:
“
21. Therefore, upon
consideration of the relevant circumstances and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56437 of 2022 dt.29-10-2026
6/7
in the absence of any specific role attributed to
the appellant-accused, it would be unjust if the
appellants are forced to go through the
tribulations of a trial i.e. general and omnibus
allegations cannot manifest in a situation where
the relatives of the complainant's husband are
forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted
by this Court in varied instances, that a criminal
trial leading to an eventual acquittal also
inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such
an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged.”
12. Taking into consideration the entire factual
scenario that the petitioners are the old and ailing mother-in-law
and father-in-law against whom, no specific allegations have
been carved out and who are facing undue harassment on
account of the pendency of the present vexatious case, this
Court is of the considered opinion that since the law is settled in
this regard, the continuance of any proceeding against these
petitioners would only amount to an abuse of the process of the
Court.
13. In such view of the matter, the impugned order
dated 30.03.2022 passed by the learned J.M.-2nd Class, Patna
City in Complaint Case No. 668 of 2020 and any prosecution
arising therefrom, so far as it relates to these petitioners, stands
quashed.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56437 of 2022 dt.29-10-2026
7/7
14. Accordingly, the present application is
allowed.

(Soni Shrivastava, J)
priyanka/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 02.11.2026
Transmission Date 02.11.2026