CHANDRA BHUSHAN CHAUBEY vs THE STATE OF BIHAR
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71510 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2022 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. CHANDRA BHUSHAN CHAUBEY S/O Late Jagiram Chaubey R/O
Mohalla Baldev Nagar, G.T Road, P.S- Sasaram Town, District- Rohtas
2. Asha Devi W/O Chandra Bhushan Chaubey R/O Mohalla Baldev Nagar,
G.T Road, P.S- Sasaram Town, District- Rohtas
3. Dheeraj Kumar Pandey S/O Sudharmanand Pandey R/O Mohalla Baldev
Nagar, G.T Road, P.S- Sasaram Town, District- Rohtas
4. Priyanka Kumari W/O Dheeraj Kumar Pandey R/O Mohalla Baldev Nagar,
G.T Road, P.S- Sasaram Town, District- Rohtas
5. Madhuri Kumari D/O Chandra Bhushan Chaubey R/O Mohalla Baldev
Nagar, G.T Road, P.S- Sasaram Town, District- Rohtas
6. Jyoti Kumari D/O Chandra Bhushan Chaubey R/O Mohalla Baldev Nagar,
G.T Road, P.S- Sasaram Town, District- Rohtas
7. Khushbu Kumari Chaubey D/O Chandra Bhushan Chaubey R/O Mohalla
Baldev Nagar, G.T Road, P.S- Sasaram Town, District- Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. Nisha Chaubey D/O Prem Prakash Pandey R/O Village- Rampur Telri, P.S-
Shiv Sagar, District- Rohtas
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Raj Kishor Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 and learned APP for the
State.
2. The present application has been filed by the
petitioners invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71510 of 2022 dt.09-07-2026
2/9
quashing of the order dated 18.08.2022 passed by the learned
S.J.-IX-cum-A.C.J.M. Rohtas, Sasaram in Mahila P.S. Case No.
16 of 2022 whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken
under Sections 341, 323, 498(A), 504, 506, 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The prosecution case is that the informant alleges
that her marriage was solemnized with Nitesh Kumar Chaubey in
the year 2018 and after marriage she started to live with her
husband and mother-in-law in a rental house. She further alleged
that the accused persons started torturing her on account of
demand of dowry and a Scorpio vehicle. The petitioners started
abusing and assaulting her, denied her food and mentally tortured
her, and thus she lodged this complaint.
4. The police, after investigation, submitted a charge-
sheet against all the petitioners under the sections mentioned
above.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
though the desertion was allegedly on 10.12.2021, the FIR was
lodged on 08.03.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submits that Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are the father-in-law and
mother-in-law of O.P. No. 2. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71510 of 2022 dt.09-07-2026
3/9
brother-in-law and married sister-in-law, whereas Petitioner Nos.
5, 6 & 7 are the unmarried sisters-in-law of O.P. No. 2.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
married nanad was married in the year 2003 and is living at
Bhabhua. Petitioner Nos. 5, 6 & 7 are living at Varanasi where
they are pursuing their studies.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits
that the husband of the informant filed Matrimonial Divorce Case
No. 114 of 2021 on 04.03.2021 and after receiving the notice,
O.P. No. 2 filed the present case on 08.03.2022.
8. The allegation against the married nanad is of
demanding a Scorpio vehicle and Rs. 5 lakh in cash. Apart from
that, there are general and omnibus allegations against the
parents. The allegation against the unmarried nanads, the married
nanad and the husband is of forcing the informant to do
household work just after delivery, and there is also an allegation
that they tried to kill her.
9. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that
a prima facie case is apparent and the Court cannot travel beyond
the prima facie case at this stage, and thus, this case is fit to be
rejected. He also submitted that specific allegations have been
levelled and they cannot be dealt with at this stage.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71510 of 2022 dt.09-07-2026
4/9
10. The law cannot be divorced from the social realities
of our time. Judicial notice has been taken of the fact that in-laws
are being implicated in cases where the dispute essentially is
between husband and wife. Naming a person and making one or
two allegations which may appear specific in nature may not be
sufficient in the facts and circumstances of a matrimonial
litigation against in-laws.
11. In Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others vs.
The State of Bihar and Others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 , the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in recent times matrimonial
litigation is on the rise and there is an increasing tendency to
employ Section 498-A IPC against the husband and his in-laws.
12. In Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported
in [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held at paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 as under:
“(13) Instances of a husband’s family
members filing a petition to quash criminal
proceedings launched against them by his wife in
the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a
rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty
abound on this score. We may now take note of some
decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in
Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar
[(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had occasion to deal
with a similar situation where the High Court had
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71510 of 2022 dt.09-07-2026
5/9
refused to quash a FIR registered for various
offences, including Section 498A IPC. Noting that
the foremost issue that required determination was
whether allegations made against the in-laws were
general omnibus allegations which would be liable
to be quashed, this Court referred to earlier
decisions wherein concern was expressed over the
misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased
tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in
matrimonial disputes. This Court observed that false
implications by way of general omnibus allegations
made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left
unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of
law. On the facts of that case, it was found that no
specific allegations were made against the in-laws
by the wife and it was held that allowing their
prosecution in the absence of clear allegations
against the in-laws would result in an abuse of the
process of law. It was also noted that a criminal
trial, leading to an eventual acquittal, would inflict
severe scars upon the accused and such an exercise
ought to be discouraged.
14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand
[(2010) 7 SCC 667], this Court noted that the
tendency to implicate the husband and all his
immediate relations is also not uncommon in
complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It was
observed that the Courts have to be extremely
careful and cautious in dealing with these
complaints and must take pragmatic realities into
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71510 of 2022 dt.09-07-2026
6/9
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases,
as allegations of harassment by the husband’s close
relations, who were living in different cities and
never visited or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided, would add an entirely different
complexion and such allegations would have to be
scrutinised with great care and circumspection.
15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti
[(2009) 10 SCC 184], this Court observed that the
mere mention of statutory provisions and the
language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is not the
‘be all and end all’ of the matter, as what is required
to be brought to the notice of the Court is the
particulars of the offence committed by each and
every accused and the role played by each and every
accused in the commission of that offence. These
observations were made in the context of a
matrimonial dispute involving Section 498A IPC.
16. Of more recent origin is the decision
of this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023, decided on
08.08.2023) on the legal principles applicable
apropos Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therein, it was
observed that when an accused comes before the
High Court, invoking either the inherent power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to
get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed,
essentially on the ground that such proceedings are
manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71510 of 2022 dt.09-07-2026
7/9
the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in
such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to
look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.
It was further observed that it will not be enough for
the Court to look into the averments made in the
FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous
or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to
look into many other attending circumstances
emerging from the record of the case over and above
the averments and, if need be, with due care and
circumspection, to try and read between the lines.”
13. In Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. , reported in (2023)
15 SCC 488 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held at Para-12
that:
“At this stage, we would like to observe
something important. Whenever an accused comes
before the Court invoking either the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR
or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on
the ground that such proceedings are manifestly
frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such
circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71510 of 2022 dt.09-07-2026
8/9
FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so
because once the complainant decides to proceed
against the accused with an ulterior motive for
wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would
ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted
with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant
would ensure that the averments made in the
FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the
necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged
offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the
Court to look into the averments made in the
FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or
vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look
into many other attending circumstances emerging
from the record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care and
circumspection try to read in between the lines.”
14. It would thus be seen that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has expanded the jurisdiction of quashing by accepting that
the courts in appropriate cases should read between the lines and
see the attending circumstances of the case even when a prima
facie case is discernible.
15. Considering the entire spectrum of the facts and
case laws involved, this Court is of the opinion that there is no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71510 of 2022 dt.09-07-2026
9/9
objective material to support the allegations made against these
petitioners who are in-laws and thus, the prosecution against
them amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court.
Accordingly, the instant quashing application is allowed.
16. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated
18.08.2022 passed by the learned S.J.-IX-cum-A.C.J.M. Rohtas,
Sasaram in Mahila P.S. Case No. 16 of 2022 is hereby quashed
insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
(Ansul, J)
amitkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 10.07.2026
Transmission Date 10.07.2026