Md. Mustaque and Ors vs State Of Bihar and Anr
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47651 of 2016
CNR No. BRHC010464432016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2013 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Nawada
======================================================
1. Md. Mustaque
2. Md. Rizwan
3. Md. Irfan
4. Md. Shahid, Sons of Late Md. Abdul Wahid
5. Guriya Khatoon @ Sahnawaz Praveen, W/o Md. Shahid, D/o Late Md.
Abdul Wahid
6. Lali Khatoon @ Gazala Praveen, D/o Late Md. Abdul Wahid
7. Noorie Khatoon @ Sahin Praveen, D/o Late Md. Abdul Wahid, W/o Aftab
Alam
8. Shabnam Khatoon, D/o Late Md. Abdul Wahid
9. Juhi Khatoon @ Rubnam Khatoon, D/o Late Md. Abdul Wahid,
All Resident of village - Bithalpur, P.S. and District - Jamui
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shabnam Praveen, D/o Late Md. Kutubuddin, Resident of Mohalla -
Moglakhar, P.S. Bundelkhand, District - Nawada
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Murlidhar, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. P.K. Verma, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 13-10-2026
The present application has been filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
( hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.” ) for quashing the order
dated 04.12.2015 passed in Nawada Mahila P.S. Case No. 18 of
2013, whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47651 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
2/13
III, Nawada took cognizance for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 ( hereinafter referred to as “I.P.C.” ) against the petitioners.
2. The prosecution case, as emerges from the
averments made in FIR and the complaint petition, is that the
instant criminal proceeding has its genesis in Complaint Case
No. 683 of 2013, which was subsequently referred to the police
station concerned for registration and investigation, resulting in
the institution of Nawada Mahila P.S. Case No. 18 of 2013.
The informant, namely, Shabnam Praveen,
complainant/opposite party No. 2 herein, alleged that her
marriage was solemnized with Md. Wasi Raza on 26.04.2003 in
accordance with Muslim rites and customs. At the time of the
marriage, ornaments and other articles were allegedly given to
her as gifts. It is further alleged that after the marriage, the
matrimonial relationship between the informant and her
husband became strained and that she was subjected to physical
and mental cruelty on account of alleged non-fulfillment of
dowry demands.
3. According to the allegations, the accused persons
began to complain that sufficient dowry had not been given at
the time of marriage and demanded that the informant bring a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47651 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
3/13
further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from her parental home. On
account of the alleged failure to fulfill the said demand, the
informant was stated to have been subjected to physical and
mental torture.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the
complaint was referred to the police, and a formal First
Information Report came to be registered. Upon completion of
the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the
petitioners, and the learned Court below, by order dated
04.12.2015, took cognizance of the offence punishable under
Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of
cognizance and the consequential criminal proceedings, the
petitioners have approached this Court invoking its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
6. Mr. S.P. Parasar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent
and have been falsely implicated in the present criminal case. It
is contended that the allegations made against them are general
and omnibus in nature and that no specific overt act constituting
the alleged offence has been attributed to each of the petitioners.
7. It is further contended that Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47651 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
4/13
are the elder brothers of the husband of Opposite Party No. 2,
Petitioner No. 5 is the wife of the brother of her husband, and
Petitioner Nos. 6 to 9 are her sisters-in-law. It is submitted that
some of the female petitioners are married sisters-in-law of the
informant. The petitioners are stated to be residing separately
from the husband of the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 and
to have no concern with her matrimonial affairs.
8. Learned counsel submits that the learned Court
below, without properly appreciating the material facts and
circumstances of the case and without examining whether the
essential ingredients of the alleged offence were made out, has
mechanically taken cognizance against the petitioners.
9. It is also contended that the allegations, as set out
in the complaint and the materials forming the basis of the
criminal proceeding, do not disclose a prima facie case
warranting prosecution of the petitioners under Section 498-A
read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.
10. Learned counsel further submits that the police,
after institution of the formal First Information Report,
proceeded with the investigation and submitted a charge-sheet
against the petitioners, notwithstanding the absence of any
legally sustainable material establishing their individual
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47651 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
5/13
involvement in the alleged offence.
11. Reliance has also been placed on the principles
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v.
State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 , to contend that criminal
proceedings under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. must be
considered in accordance with the safeguards and principles
governing the exercise of criminal jurisdiction.
12. It is lastly submitted that the continuation of the
criminal proceeding against the petitioners would cause undue
harassment and prejudice to them and that the impugned order
of cognizance, being unsustainable in law, is fit to be quashed in
exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
13. Mr. P.K Verma, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 vehemently
opposes the prayer for quashing and submits that the present
application is devoid of merit and is fit to be dismissed. It is
contended that the complaint was instituted by the
complainant/opposite party No. 2 after she was subjected to
physical and mental cruelty in her matrimonial home on account
of non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. The allegations
disclose that, despite sufficient articles and ornaments having
been given at the time of marriage, the accused persons were
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47651 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
6/13
dissatisfied and demanded a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from
the informant.
14. It is further contended that the allegations made
in the complaint, taken in their entirety, disclose the commission
of an offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section
34 of the I.P.C. Learned counsel contends that the petitioners
cannot seek quashing of the criminal proceeding merely by
asserting their innocence or disputing the allegations made by
the informant. The truthfulness and correctness of the
allegations, as well as the respective roles of the accused
persons, are matters which require consideration on the basis of
the evidence adduced during trial.
15. Learned counsel further submits that the plea of
the petitioners that they are residing separately and have been
falsely implicated on account of their relationship with the
husband of complainant/opposite party No. 2 cannot, by itself,
constitute a ground for quashing the criminal proceeding at its
threshold. It is contended that the police, after investigation of
the case, submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioners and the
learned Court below, upon consideration of the materials placed
before it, proceeded to take cognizance of the offence.
Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47651 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
7/13
exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
16. It is lastly submitted that the allegations relate
to serious matrimonial cruelty and dowry harassment and that
quashing the criminal proceeding at this stage would deprive the
complainant/opposite party No. 2 of an opportunity to establish
her case in accordance with law. Learned counsel accordingly
submits that no exceptional circumstance has been made out
warranting interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and
prays that the present application be dismissed and the criminal
proceedings be permitted to continue in accordance with law.
17. Mr. Murlidhar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State opposes the prayer for quashing and
submits that the criminal case was instituted pursuant to the
allegations made by the complainant/opposite party No. 2 and
that the police, upon investigation, submitted a charge-sheet
against the petitioners.
18. It is submitted that the allegations relate to
matrimonial cruelty and demand of dowry and that the question
of the actual involvement of the petitioners would ordinarily be
a matter for consideration by the trial court in accordance with
law.
19. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47651 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
8/13
of the respective parties and perused the records of case,
materials and evidence placed on records.
20. At this stage, it would be germane to quote
section 498(A) of the I.P.C.:-
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty.—
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of
the husband of a woman, subjects such woman
to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to three years and
shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.— For the purpose of this section,
“cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether mental
or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is
with a view to coercing her or any person
related to her to meet any unlawful demand for
any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure by
her or any person related to her to meet such
demand.”
21. Herein the p etitioners, being relatives of
husband of the opposite party No. 2 i.e. , the complainant, appear
to have been roped-in the case at hand on account of them
having relationship with the husband as aforesaid. The
allegations made against the petitioners, who are relatives of the
husband, has to be examined individually and with objectivity in
order to find out whether the case under Section 498(A) of the
Indian Penal Code is made out against them or not.
22. The mere existence of matrimonial discord,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47651 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
9/13
therefore, cannot automatically result in criminal liability under
Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. The allegations must disclose the
ingredients of the offence against the particular accused.
23. In the present case, the allegations made against
the petitioners have to be examined individually.
24. The petitioners before this Court are the
parents, sisters and other relatives of the husband, viz.,
petitioner No. 1 to 4 , are elder brothers of husband namely Md.
Mustaque, Md. Rizwan, Md. Irfan and Md. Shahid and
p etitioner no. 5, namely Guriya Khatoon, is the wife of the
brother of her husband, and Petitioner Nos. 6 to 9, namely Lali
Khatoon, Noorie Khatoon, Shabnam Khatoon and Juhi Khatoon
are sisters-in-law of the C omplainant/O.P. No. 2 respectively.
25. On bare perusal of the averments made in the
complaint petition as well as from the statements recorded in
course of enquiry, it is manifestly evident that the allegations
against the petitioners are generic, vague and omnibus in nature
without specifying with respect to each of them as to what were
their acts and conduct towards the complainant/O.P. No. 2
which could be termed to be cruelty.
26. A matrimonial dispute between husband and
wife cannot, by itself, furnish a basis for mechanically
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47651 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
10/13
implicating every relative of the husband. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. v. State of Bihar
& Ors. , reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 , wherein it was held that:
“In view of the increased tendency of implicating
relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes,
without analysing the long-term ramifications of a
trial on the complainant as well as the accused, the
Courts should be very careful in proceeding against
the distant relatives. The relatives of the husband
should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus
allegations unless specific instances of their
involvement in the crime are made out.”
27. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
Arti Mehta & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. :
reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 933 , while raising concern
over the growing tendency amongst the complainant/O.P. No. 2
of falsely implicating the relatives in order to put undue
pressure, has held as follows:
“That the Courts are required to exercise greater
caution and carefully scrutinise whether the
allegations genuinely disclose the commission of
cognizable offences against each accused so
implicated. The criminal law cannot be permitted to
be set in motion against every relative of the
husband merely on the basis of generalised and
omnibus allegations lacking a specific factual
foundation.”
28. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of
the present case, this Court finds that the allegations against the
petitioners do not contain the necessary particulars from which
their individual participation in the alleged offences can
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47651 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
11/13
reasonably be inferred, satisfying the ingredients of offences
under Section 498(A) of I.P.C..
29. Where the allegations against the individual
relatives are general and omnibus and do not disclose their
specific role, continuation of prosecution against them would
not advance the cause of justice.
30. This Court is conscious of the fact that the
jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised
sparingly and with circumspection. At the same time, the said
jurisdiction is intended to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court and to secure the ends of justice.
31. It is equally well settled that while considering
an application for quashing, the High Court ordinarily does not
undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence. However,
where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not
disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged, or
where continuation of the proceeding would amount to abuse of
the process of law, interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
is justified.
32. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is not intended to stifle
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47651 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
12/13
legitimate prosecution. At the same time, the Court cannot
remain a silent spectator where continuation of criminal
proceedings would result in unnecessary harassment of persons
against whom the complaint does not disclose the requisite
ingredients of the offences.
33. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Kahkashan Kausar ( supra ), absence of specific allegations and
individual roles against the relatives of the husband is a relevant
consideration for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C.
34. Having considered the allegations in the
complaint in their entirety, this Court finds that the present case
falls within the category where interference is warranted to
prevent abuse of the process of law.
35. Upon consideration of the entire factual and
legal conspectus, this Court is of the considered view that the
continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners
would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of
the process of the Court.
36. Thus, the impugned order dated 4.12.2015
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III,
Nawada in Connection with Nawada Mahila P.S Case No. 18 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47651 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
13/13
2013, therefore, cannot be sustained and, hence, the same is fit
to be quashed.
37. Accordingly, the order dated 4.12.2015 passed
by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Nawada
in connection with Nawada Mahila P.S Case No. 18 of 2013
whereby cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable
under Sections 498(A) read with 34 of the I.P.C. is, hereby,
quashed and set aside.
38. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding
emanating from Nawada Mahila P.S Case No. 18 of 2013,
including the consequential proceeding against the petitioners, is
hereby quashed.
39. Thus, this application stands allowed in the
aforesaid terms.
40. All pending interlocutory application(s), if any,
stands disposed of.
(Rana Vikram Singh, J)
Rakesh/Supratim
-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 24.07.2026
Uploading Date 18.10.2026
Transmission Date 18.10.2026