Rakhi Singh and Ors vs State Of Bihar and Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44507 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-144 Year-2017 Thana- CHAPRA MUFFASIL District- Saran
======================================================
1. Rakhi Singh Daughter of Uma Shankar Prasad Singh and Wife of Arvind
Kumar Singh
2. Arvind Kumar Singh @ Arvind Singh Son of Shiv Shankar Singh Both
Resident of Quarter No. IV/16, Building No. 96 . R.C.F. Colony, Chembur
East, P.O. and P.S. Chembur EAst, District- Mumbai , 400071 Maharashtra.
3. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh Son of late Ramajna Singh
4. Raj Kali Devi@ Raj Kali Singh Wife of Sri Uma Shankar Prasad Singh
5. Rakesh Singh Son of Sri Uma Shankar Prasad Singh Sl No. 3 to 5 are
Resident of Village Balwa Koari, P.S. Sadar Hajipur, District Vaishali, At
Present Residing at Flat No. D-101, Ex-Service Men's Housing Society ,
Sector-2E, Kalamboli, P.S. Kalamboli, District- Raigarh, Navi Mumbai
Maharashtra, Pin Code- 410218.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar
2. Kumari Neha Singh Daughter of Shatrughan Prasad Singh Reisdent of
Village/Mohallah- Bishanpura, P.S. Chapra Muffassil, District- Saran at
Chapra Bihar, At Present Residing at Mohallah- Rajput Nagar Hajipur
House No. 253, Road No. 05, Hajipur, P.S. HajipurTown, District Vaishali at
HajipurBihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. R.K. Sinha No.2, Advocate
Mr. Gajendra Nath Ojha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Prasad, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Braj Nandan Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-09-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
A.P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel for the Opposite
Party No.2.
2. The petitioners have filed the present application
praying therein for quashing of the order dated 19.12.2017 passed
by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra, in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44507 of 2018 dt.01-09-2026
2/7
connection with Chapra Mufassil P.S. Case No. 144 of 2017,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 504,
506, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The prayer on behalf of the petitioner No.5, Rakesh
Singh, the husband of the informant, was previously withdrawn by
order dated 01.11.2018.
4. As per the allegation, the marriage of the informant
was solemnized with one Rakesh Singh on 28.11.2012, according
to Hindu rites and rituals, at the time of marriage Rs. 10 Lakh was
given by way of RTGS and Demand Draft apart from diamond
ring, gold chain and furniture worth Rs. 8 Lakhs as dowry. The
informant had also given diamond and gold jewelry sets worth Rs.
10 Lakh. It is further alleged that initially the informant was taken
to her matrimonial house but thereafter she was taken to Navi
Mumbai. After reaching Mumbai all the petitioners herein started
torturing her for the reason that they were not given expected
dowry and asked for a Honda City car and Rs. 10 Lakh,
whereupon the father and brother of the informant went there and
told that they are not capable of meeting out their demand. It is
further alleged that thereafter the informant was kept confined in a
small room and her husband, who was having affairs with many

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44507 of 2018 dt.01-09-2026
3/7
girls used to chat with them and everyday came back home in a
drunken condition and tortured her. She somehow managed to stay
there in the prevailing condition in a hope that thing will improve,
however, when there was no improvement she was brought to her
parental house by her brother, whereafter, she gave birth to a girl
child who was suffering from thyroid since birth because of the
mental stress the informant had undergone during her pregnancy. It
has further been alleged that after sometime, a Panchayti was held
and the parents in law of the informant assuring of proper
treatment took her to Mumbai, however, after sometime, they
again started torturing her and confined her in the house and
despite persuasion by the family members of the informant there
was no improvement in the treatment meted out to her and finally
on 11.04.2017, the informant came back to her parental house
however, the accused persons retained all her jwellery threatening
that if she will come back she will be killed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
petitioner No.1 happens to be the married sister-in-law, while
petitioner No. 2 happens to be the brother-in-law, i.e., husband of
the petitioner No. 1, and petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are father-in-law
and mother-in-law respectively of the informant. It has further
been submitted that there happens to be a general and omnibus

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44507 of 2018 dt.01-09-2026
4/7
allegation against the petitioners. It has further been submitted that
the entire occurrence took place in Mumbai within the state of
Maharashtra and only part of the same took place within the
jurisdiction of district Court at Chapra. It has further been
submitted, referring to the Sections 177, 178 and 179 of the
Cr.P.C., that it is hit by jurisdictional error. It has further been
submitted that only part, which took place within Chapra district
jurisdiction, is that the parents-in-law, who happens to be the
petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, came to the parental house of the
informant and took her to Mumbai where she was tortured,
wherein, petitioner No. 2 played active role. It has further been
submitted, referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana ,
reported in (2025) 3 SCC 735 , that dragging into criminal
prosecution the family members of the husband, who were not
living in the matrimonial house and were not having any
connection to the matter and there being no specific allegation
against them would amount to abuse of the process of law.
5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further
placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand , reported in
(2010) 7 SCC 667 , as also in the case of Achin Gupta vs. State of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44507 of 2018 dt.01-09-2026
5/7
Haryana & Anr; reported in [2024] 6 S.C.R. 129 , and in the case
of K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana , reported in (2018) 14
SCC 452 , and has, thus, submitted that the general and omnibus
allegation against the family members of the husband of the
informant/complainant out of matrimonial discord without any
specific allegation should be quashed as there is growing tendency
to falsely implicate the entire family members who stay away from
the husband and the victim, out of matrimonial disputes.
5.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further
submitted that the husband of the informant is regularly paying an
amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month, which has been ordered by the
Court concerned in the domestic violence proceeding. It has
further been submitted that the order taking cognizance has been
passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial
mind and the continuation of the present prosecution as against
them would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
5.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further
referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of PEPSI FOODS LTD. AND ANOTHER vs. SPECIAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AND OTHERS , reported in (1998)
5 Supreme Court Cases 749 , and has submitted that issuing of
summons to an accused is a serious matter, it casts a duty on the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44507 of 2018 dt.01-09-2026
6/7
Magistrate to apply his mind to the allegations made in the
complaint and to the materials available before him and must be
satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against
the accused. The Magistrate must not issue process against the
accused without applying the mind separately to the alleged role of
that accused.
5.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further
submitted, referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh ,
reported in (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 618 , that where a
charge-sheet despite completing the investigation, still fails to
attribute any specific act to a named accused, it cannot sustain
prosecution against that person. Criminal liability is individual and
must be grounded in specific conduct. Collective naming without
individuated culpability, is an abuse of the process against the
unspecified accused.
6. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned
counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has vehemently opposed the
prayer of the petitioners and has submitted that the order taking
cognizance against the petitioners is well reasoned and does not
require any interference as from the F.I.R., the materials collected
during the investigation and the charge-sheet, a prima facie case is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44507 of 2018 dt.01-09-2026
7/7
made out against the petitioners and the petitioners also actively
participated with the husband of the informant in the commission
of offence against the informant.
7. Heard the parties and perused the record.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances as well as the
judgments referred to herein above, the prosecution against the
petitioners does not appear to be sustainable in view of lack of
jurisdiction, general and omnibus nature of the allegation against
them and keeping in view the settled principles as laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred above, the order
taking cognizance dated 19.12.2017 passed by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra, in connection with Chapra
Mufassil P.S. Case No. 144 of 2017, against the petitioner Nos.
1,2,3 and 4 is hereby quashed. However, further proceedings with
respect to co-accused Rakesh Singh may continue.
10. Accordingly, the application stands allowed.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Abdus/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 02.09.2026
Transmission Date 02.09.2026