Vidya Singh @ Vidya Nand Sharma and Ors vs The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45254 of 2018
CNR No. BRHC010648752018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-197 Year-2017 Thana- BIKRAM District- Patna
======================================================
1. Vidya Singh @ Vidya Nand Sharma, Son of Late Satya Narayan Sharma
2. Lila Devi @ Lilawati Sharma, Wife of Shri Vidya Singh @ Vidya Nand
Sharma
3. Kundan Kumar, Son of Shri Vidya Singh @ Vidya Nand Sharma
4. Veena Kumari
5. Munmun Kumari, Both Daughters of Shri Vidya Singh @ Vidya Nand
Sharma All R/o Village - Arap, P.S. - Bikram, Dist - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anjali Kumari, D/o- Sanjay Sharma, R/o village- Jahara, Bhagwanpur, P.O-
Tishkora, P.S- Naubatpur, District-Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Indra Mohan Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 04-11-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present application has been filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) against the order dated 11.12.2017 passed by the
Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Danapur
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Magistrate’) in connection with Bikram
P.S. Case No.197 of 2017, wherein learned Magistrate took

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45254 of 2018 dt.04-11-2026
2/12
cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 & 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the accused persons
(petitioners herein) who are in-laws of the O.P. No.2.
3. The prosecution case, as disclosed in the written
complaint, is that the informant, Anjali Kumari (O.P. No.2),
submitted a written report alleging, inter alia , that her marriage
was solemnized with Chandan Kumar in the year 2016. It is
alleged that after her marriage, her father-in-law (petitioner no.1),
mother-in-law (petitioner no.2), brother-in-law (petitioner no.3)
and sisters-in-law (petitioner nos.4 & 5) started subjecting her to
physical and mental cruelty and abuse. It is further alleged that the
accused persons used to demand Rs.2,00,000/- in cash, a colour
television, motorcycle, refrigerator and ornaments as dowry and,
upon non-fulfillment of the aforesaid demands, they subjected her
to assault and torture. The informant (O.P. No.2) further alleged
that the accused persons had sent her husband somewhere and,
during his absence, they used to assault her after tying her hands.
On the basis of the aforesaid written report, Bikram P.S. Case
No.197 of 2017 was instituted under Section 498A of the IPC and
Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Upon completion of
investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge-sheet

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45254 of 2018 dt.04-11-2026
3/12
dated 30.09.2017 bearing C.S. No.150 of 2017 against the
petitioners for the aforesaid offences.
4. Upon perusal of the materials available on record, the
learned Magistrate, vide order dated 11.12.2017, took cognizance
of the offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and
Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against the present
petitioners who are in-laws of the O.P. No.2. Being aggrieved by
the aforesaid order of cognizance dated 11.12.2017 passed by the
learned Magistrate, the present petitioners have preferred the
present Criminal Miscellaneous application.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submitted that the impugned order is wholly unsustainable in the
facts and circumstances of the present case, inasmuch as the
allegations levelled in the F.I.R. are general, omnibus and bereft of
specific particulars regarding the individual role of the petitioners.
It is submitted that although the informant (O.P. No.2) has alleged
demand of dowry and physical and mental torture, no specific
overt act or particular instance of cruelty attributable to any of the
petitioners has been disclosed. It is further submitted that the
petitioners have no criminal antecedent and have been falsely
implicated in the present case with an ulterior motive to harass and
pressurize them.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45254 of 2018 dt.04-11-2026
4/12
6. Learned counsel further submits that, in fact, the
alleged marriage itself is disputed, as the son of petitioner nos.1 &
2, namely, Chandan Kumar, was aged about 16 years at the
relevant point of time and, according to the petitioners, had been
taken to a temple by certain persons, where he was compelled to
put sindur on the forehead of the informant (O.P. No.2) without his
consent. It is pointed out that a matrimonial case bearing
Matrimonial Case No.213 of 2017 had already been instituted
through his father as natural guardian before the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Patna, seeking a declaration regarding the
nullity of the alleged marriage. It is submitted that the present
criminal case was instituted subsequent thereto, with a view to
exert pressure upon the petitioners to accept the alleged marriage.
It is also submitted that O.P. No.2 has already got married to
someone else. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal
proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of
the process of the Court, particularly when the allegations, even if
taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of the
alleged offences by the petitioners. In support of his contention,
learned counsel referred and relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others
v. State of Telangana & Another , reported in (2025) 3 SCC 735.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45254 of 2018 dt.04-11-2026
5/12
Accordingly, learned counsel prayed for quashing of the impugned
order of cognizance and the consequential criminal proceedings.
7. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State
submitted that the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance
based on the materials available on record. He submitted
thereupon, at the stage of cognizance, meticulous appreciation of
evidence is not required and, in view thereof, appropriate order
may be passed by this Court to secure the ends of justice.
8. Despite valid service of notice upon the O.P. No.2,
none has entered appearance on her behalf nor has any submission
been advanced on her behalf.
9. Before adverting to the rival submissions advanced on
behalf of the parties and examining the materials available on
record, it would be apposite to briefly advert to the scope and
ambit of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C. The inherent powers are intended to be exercised to
give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C., to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
However, such power is extraordinary in nature and is required to
be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in
appropriate cases. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C., this Court is not expected to embark upon an enquiry into

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45254 of 2018 dt.04-11-2026
6/12
the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations or undertake a
meticulous examination of the evidence. At the same time, where
the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the materials collected during
investigation, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence, or where the
continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of
the process of law, this Court would be justified in exercising its
inherent jurisdiction to prevent such abuse and secure the ends of
justice.
10. The principles governing the exercise of inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. have been elaborately
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the celebrated
judgment of State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others ,
reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court illustrated certain categories of cases in which the inherent
powers of the High Court may be exercised to quash criminal
proceedings. One of the well-recognised categories is where the
allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint, even if taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
Another category is where the allegations are so absurd and
inherently improbable that no prudent person could ever reach a

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45254 of 2018 dt.04-11-2026
7/12
just conclusion that there exists sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, however,
cautioned that these categories are illustrative and not exhaustive,
and the inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and with
due circumspection.
11. Thus, the crucial consideration for this Court, while
examining the prayer for quashing, is whether the allegations
levelled against the petitioners, read as a whole and without
embarking upon an appreciation of the defence version, disclose
the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. The Court is also
required to examine whether the continuation of the criminal
proceedings against the petitioners would serve the ends of justice
or would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. It is in
the light of the aforesaid settled principles that the facts and
materials of the present case are required to be examined.
12. Upon consideration of the allegations made in the
F.I.R. and the materials available on record, it appears that the
allegations against the petitioners are general and omnibus in
nature. The informant (O.P. No.2) has made collective allegations
against the petitioners, who happen to be her father-in-law
(petitioner no.1), mother-in-law (petitioner no.2), brother-in-law
(petitioner no.3) and two unmarried sisters-in-law (petitioner nos.4

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45254 of 2018 dt.04-11-2026
8/12
& 5). However, there is no specific allegation disclosing the
individual role played by each of the petitioners in the alleged
demand of dowry or commission of cruelty. The allegations
regarding demand of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash and other articles, as
well as the alleged assault and torture, have been levelled in a
sweeping manner without furnishing specific particulars of the
alleged acts attributable to the petitioners.
13. It is further evident from the materials placed on
record that the very relationship of husband and wife between the
informant (O.P. No.2) and Chandan Kumar is under dispute. The
specific case of the petitioners is that Chandan Kumar was aged
about 16 years at the relevant point of time and that the alleged
marriage was performed under circumstances which were neither
voluntary nor consensual. In this regard, the petitioners have also
brought on record the institution of Matrimonial Case No.213 of
2017 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna,
through his father as natural guardian, seeking a declaration
regarding the nullity of the alleged marriage. Though the pendency
of the matrimonial proceeding, by itself, may not be sufficient to
discard the criminal allegations, the same assumes relevance when
considered in conjunction with the nature of allegations levelled in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45254 of 2018 dt.04-11-2026
9/12
the present case and the circumstances in which the criminal
prosecution came to be instituted.
14. This Court is conscious of the settled legal position
that, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration for
conducting a mini-trial, nor can the Court undertake a meticulous
appreciation of the evidence collected during investigation.
Nevertheless, where the allegations, even if accepted in their
entirety, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences
alleged, the High Court would be justified in exercising its
inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of law. In the
present case, apart from the omnibus allegations of demand of
dowry and physical and mental harassment, there is no specific
material indicating the individual involvement of the petitioners in
the alleged acts of cruelty. The mere fact that the petitioners are
related to the husband of the informant cannot, in the absence of
specific allegations constituting the alleged offences, be sufficient
to subject them to the rigours of a criminal trial.
15. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi
Narayana (supra) , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while
dealing with a case involving allegations under Section 498A of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45254 of 2018 dt.04-11-2026
10/12
the IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
deprecated the practice of implicating the family members of the
husband in matrimonial disputes on the basis of vague, general and
omnibus allegations. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly in
paragraph 27 of the judgment, observed as herein under:
“27. A mere reference to the names
of family members in a criminal case arising
out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific
allegations indicating their active involvement
should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-
recognised fact, borne out of judicial
experience, that there is often a tendency to
implicate all the members of the husband's
family when domestic disputes arise out of a
matrimonial discord. Such generalised and
sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete
evidence or particularised allegations cannot
form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts
must exercise caution in such cases to prevent
misuse of legal provisions and the legal
process and avoid unnecessary harassment of
innocent family members………. ”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court ultimately held that
continuation of such criminal proceedings, in the absence of
specific allegations against the individual family members, would
amount to an abuse of the process of law and would warrant
interference by the High Court in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
16. Having regard to the nature of allegations, the
absence of specific and distinct accusations against the petitioners

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45254 of 2018 dt.04-11-2026
11/12
and the attending circumstances in which the present criminal case
came to be instituted, this Court is of the considered view that the
allegations, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety, do not make out a prima facie case warranting
continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
Permitting the prosecution to continue in such circumstances
would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. The present
case, therefore, falls within the parameters laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) , warranting
interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
17. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 11.12.2017
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV,
Danapur, in connection with Bikram P.S. Case No.197 of 2017,
taking cognizance of the offences under Section 498A of the IPC
and the Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as
the consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom, are
hereby quashed and set aside, insofar as the petitioners are
concerned.
18. The present Criminal Miscellaneous application is,
accordingly, allowed.
19. Interim Order(s), if any, stand vacated.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45254 of 2018 dt.04-11-2026
12/12
20. Let a copy of this Judgment be transmitted to the
Court concerned forthwith for needful and compliance.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 27.10.2026
Uploading Date 04.11.2026
Transmission Date 04.11.2026