AFROJ ALAM vs THE STATE OF BIHAR
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24085 of 2019
CNR No. BRHC010252852019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2702 Year-2011 Thana- WEST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT
District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Afroj Alam Son of Late Sarfuddin Mian Resident of Village - Maldahiya, P.S.-
Shikarpur, District - West Champaran.
2. Afsana Khatoon Wife of Afroj Mian Resident of Village - Maldahiya, P.S.- Shikarpur,
District - West Champaran.
3. Saiyada Khatoon Wife of Late Sarfuddin Mian Resident of Village - Maldahiya, P.S.-
Shikarpur, District - West Champaran.
4. Timal Khan @ Najmuddin @ Najmuddin Khan Son of Farid Khan Resident of Village -
Maldahiya, P.S.- Shikarpur, District - West Champaran.
5. Jobaida Khatoon @ Jaivaida Khatun Wife of Timal Khan @ Nejamudin Miya Resident
of Village - Maldahiya, P.S.- Shikarpur, District - West Champaran.
6. Firoj Alam Son of Late Sarfuddin Mian Resident of Village - Maldahiya, P.S.-
Shikarpur, District - West Champaran.
7. Saddam Hussain Son of Timal Khan @ Najmuddin Khan Resident of Village -
Maldahiya, P.S.- Shikarpur, District - West Champaran.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Afsana Khatoon Wife of Prawej Alam D/O Bali Ahmad, Resident of Village -
Maldahiya, P.S.- Shikarpur, District - West Champaran.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No.1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-10-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present application has been filed invoking
the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the order
dated 06.10.2018 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran, in S.C. No.
350 of 2019, corresponding to S.C. No. 407 of 2018,
arising out of Complaint Case No. 2702-C of 2011, whereby
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24085 of 2019 dt.29-10-2026
2/9
the prayer of the petitioners for discharge under Section 245
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been rejected.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the
complainant filed Complaint Case No. 2702-C of 2011 on
14.11.2011, alleging that she was married to accused,
Prawej Alam, in the year 2004 according to Muslim rites and
customs. At the time of marriage, cash, ornaments, furniture
and other articles were allegedly given to her.
4. It is further alleged that, after marriage, the
complainant went to her matrimonial home and gave birth to
two daughters, who were then aged about four years and
two years. Thereafter, accused nos. 1 to 8 allegedly started
subjecting her to torture in connection with a demand of Rs.
1,00,000/- for enabling her husband to start a business. The
complainant allegedly informed her father about the
demand, but he expressed his inability to fulfil it. According
to the complaint, the accused persons refused to keep her at
the matrimonial home until the demand was fulfilled.
5. It is further alleged that, on 12.11.2011, the
accused persons attempted to kill the complainant. However,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24085 of 2019 dt.29-10-2026
3/9
upon her assurance that she would try to arrange the money
through her father and upon the intervention of neighbours,
she was ultimately turned out of her matrimonial home.
6. After inquiry, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran, by order dated
16.08.2012, took cognizance of the offences under Section
498A of the IPC and the relevant provisions of the D P Act
against the accused persons, excluding Prateek Alam, who is
not a petitioner in the present case.
7. The complainant, her mother and her uncle
were examined as witnesses in the evidence before charge.
According to the petitioners, their depositions do not disclose
any specific allegation against them, and the principal
allegations are directed against the husband of the
complainant.
8. On 21.05.2018, the petitioners filed an
application under Section 245 of the CrPC seeking their
discharge from the case. Subsequently, on 10.08.2018, the
complainant filed an application seeking framing of charges
against the accused persons. The petitioners contend that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24085 of 2019 dt.29-10-2026
4/9
even in the said application, no specific role was attributed to
them.
9. The petitioners are the in-laws of the
complainant. They contend that they have been implicated
merely because of their relationship with the husband and
that no material has been brought on record to justify
proceeding against them. However, the learned court below,
by the impugned order dated 06.10.2018, rejected their
prayer for discharge.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the allegations in the complaint are general and
omnibus in nature and that no specific act of cruelty or
harassment has been attributed to the petitioners. It is
further submitted that the evidence recorded before charge
does not disclose sufficient material to proceed against them.
11. Learned counsel also submits that the
complaint petition is not supported by an affidavit, contrary
to the safeguards emphasised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Priyanka Srivastava and Another v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others, reported in (2015)6 SCC 287 . It
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24085 of 2019 dt.29-10-2026
5/9
is contended that the continuation of the criminal proceeding
against the petitioners, in the absence of specific allegations
and supporting material, would amount to an abuse of the
process of the Court.
12. Despite service of notice, the informant has
not appeared before this Court.
13. Having considered the submissions and the
materials available on record, this Court finds that the
principal question requiring consideration is whether the
criminal proceeding against the petitioners can be permitted
to continue when they are the in-laws of the complainant
and no specific allegation or individual role has been
disclosed against them.
14. Reliance is placed on Abhishek v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1083 , where the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasised that
criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes
must be examined carefully where relatives of the husband
have been implicated through general and omnibus
allegations. Mere relationship with the husband cannot, by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24085 of 2019 dt.29-10-2026
6/9
itself, justify criminal prosecution. The allegations must
disclose the necessary ingredients of the alleged offence and
a sufficient factual basis for proceeding against the person
concerned.
15. The principle laid down in the aforesaid
judgment is relevant to the facts of the present case. The
petitioners are the in-laws of the complainant, and the
materials placed before this Court do not disclose any
specific act of cruelty, harassment or dowry-related demand
attributable to them individually. The allegations, as
presented, are directed principally against the husband of
the complainant. The mere fact that the petitioners belong to
the matrimonial family cannot be a sufficient ground to
subject them to a criminal trial in the absence of material
disclosing their individual involvement.
16. It is true that, at the stage of consideration of
discharge, the Court is not required to conduct a detailed
examination of the evidence as would be undertaken at the
stage of trial. Nevertheless, the Court must examine whether
the material on record provides a sufficient basis for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24085 of 2019 dt.29-10-2026
7/9
proceeding against the accused. Where the allegations are
general in nature and the evidence before charge does not
disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences
against particular accused persons, continuation of the
proceeding may result in an abuse of the process of law.
17. In the present case, the complainant, her
mother and her uncle have been examined before charge. As
stated by the petitioners, their depositions do not disclose
any specific overt act on the part of the petitioners. The
allegations, in substance, concern the demand allegedly
made by the husband and the subsequent matrimonial
discord. No distinct role has been attributed to the
petitioners which would prima facie establish their
involvement in the alleged offences.
18. The other aspect urged on behalf of the
petitioners relates to the absence of an affidavit
accompanying the complaint petition. In Priyanka
Srivastava Case (Supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court
emphasised the importance of affidavits and safeguards
against the misuse of the criminal process.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24085 of 2019 dt.29-10-2026
8/9
19. In the present case, the absence of specific
allegations against the petitioners, when considered along
with the depositions recorded before charge and the overall
nature of the accusation, assumes significance. The materials
do not disclose a sufficient factual basis for continuing the
criminal proceeding against the petitioners merely on
account of their relationship with the husband of the
complainant.
20. This Court is conscious of the fact that the
power to quash a criminal proceeding must be exercised with
care and only where the circumstances justify such
interference. However, where the allegations, even when
considered in their entirety, do not disclose the commission
of the alleged offences by the persons sought to be
prosecuted, the Court would be justified in exercising its
inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of law
and to secure the ends of justice.
21. In view of the facts and circumstances
discussed above and taking note of Abhishek Case
(Supra) , this Court finds that the continuation of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24085 of 2019 dt.29-10-2026
9/9
criminal proceeding against the petitioners, who are the in-
laws, in the absence of specific allegations and supporting
material disclosing their individual involvement, would serve
no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the
process of the Court.
22. Accordingly the impugned dated 06.10.2018
passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Bettiah, West Champaran, in S.C. No. 350 of 2019,
corresponding to S.C. No. 407 of 2018, arising out of
Complaint Case No. 2702-C of 2011, is hereby set-
aside/quashed qua all above named petitioners with all its
consequential proceedings.
23. Hence the present petition stands allowed.
24. Let the copy of the judgment be sent to
learned trial court forthwith with TCR, if any.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Aniket/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 29.10.2026
Transmission Date 29.10.2026