Alok Ranjan and Ors vs State Of Bihar and Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13977 of 2018
CNR No. BRHC010624802018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2016 Thana- MALI District- Aurangabad
======================================================
1. Alok Ranjan and Ors son of Awadhesh Singh
2. Awadhesh Singh, son of Late Ram Ratan Singh
3. Pradeep Singh, son of Late Ram Ratan Singh
4. Manorma Devi, W/o Awadhesh Singh, All are Resident of Village- Kolh
Manjhauli, P.S. Mali, District- Aurangabad.
5. Sheela Devi, W/o Ajeet Singh, resident of Village- Karahara, P.S.-
Aurangabad M, District- Aurangabad Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar and Anr
2. Bindu Devi @ Nitu Devi, W/o Amish Kumar Singh, D/o Ramchandra
Singh, R/o Kolh Manjhauli, P.S.- Mali, District- Aurangabad Bihar, at
present- Karahara, P.S.- Aurangabad Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Birendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sharda Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-10-2026

Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Mr. Dinesh Singh, learned APP for the State.
None appears for the Opposite Party No. 2. Notice upon her was
taken as validly served by order dated 22.08.2019. On 31.08.2026
the matter was adjourned for four weeks only to enable her to
appear and assist the Court, failing which the Court was to proceed

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13977 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
2/13
in her absence. She has not appeared even thereafter and the matter
is being decided on the record.
2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order
dated 11.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate V, Aurangabad in connection with Mali P.S. Case No.
21 of 2016 (G.R. No. 4516 of 2016, Trial No. 1906 of 2017),
whereby cognizance has been taken against them and the husband
of the Opposite Party No. 2 under sections 498A, 34 IPC and 3/4
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The charge sheet is under Section
498A read with Section 34 IPC only, but cognizance has been
taken under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3
and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case is now pending in
the court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Aurangabad. By order dated 06.11.2018 interim protection was
granted to the petitioners and it has continued since.
3. The Opposite Party No. 2 is the informant. Petitioner
No. 1 Alok Ranjan is her devar, the younger brother of her
husband. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 4, Awadhesh Singh and Manorma
Devi, are her father-in-law and mother-in-law. Petitioner No. 3
Pradeep Singh is described in the FIR as her chachera sasur; in the
cause title he is shown, like petitioner No. 2, as a son of late Ram
Ratan Singh. Petitioner No. 5 Sheela Devi is the married sister of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13977 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
3/13
the husband and lives with her own husband at village Karahara,
which happens to be the village of the informant's parents as well.
The husband, Amish Kumar Singh, is the sixth accused. He has not
come to this Court.
4. The FIR was registered on 07.05.2016 on the written
application of the informant given at Mali Police Station. She
stated that she was married to Amish Kumar Singh on 12.01.2012
in a court at Bhagalpur. The petition describes the marriage as of
12.01.2016, which is a mistake, as both the FIR and the case diary
give the year 2012. According to her, for some days after the
marriage her husband and his family kept her well. Thereafter the
husband, the father-in-law, the devar , the chachera sasur , the
mother-in-law and the nanad Sheela Devi of village Karahara
began to compel her to bring Rs. 4,00,000 and a Bullet motorcycle
from her parents as dowry. When she told them that her parents
were poor and could not give dowry, all of them started assaulting
and abusing her and harassing her for dowry. Whenever her
parents came to meet her at the sasural , they too were abused and
threatened with assault and were told that they would not be
allowed to meet their daughter till the money and the motorcycle
were given. Fed up with this she came to the police station. In the
FIR the occurrence is shown as from after 12.01.2012, with no day

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13977 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
4/13
and no time. Against the column for the reason of delay, the only
entry is that the application was received late.
5. A carbon copy of the case diary was called for and has
been received from the court below. It is handwritten and faint at
places but can be followed. In paragraph 3 the informant has
restated what is in the FIR. Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 contain the
statements of witnesses. They say what the FIR says, naming the
same six persons together and giving the same figure of Rs.
4,00,000/- and the same Bullet motorcycle. On 28.05.2016 all six
accused appeared before the court below and were released on
bail, as the case diary itself records. After the supervision, the
Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet No. 36 of 2016 dated
29.06.2016 against all six under Section 498A read with Section
34 IPC. The FIR does not speak of any injury on any date and no
injury report or treatment paper is on the record.
6. By the impugned order the learned Magistrate noticed
that the charge sheet was only under Section 498A read with
Section 34 IPC while the FIR was also under Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, for which, in his words, there was
ample material in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the case diary. On that
footing he found a prima facie case under all the sections against
the six FIR named accused and issued summons.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13977 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
5/13
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
the entire family of the husband has been made accused only
because of the relationship. The allegation is the same for every
one of them and no role is given to any petitioner separately. The
marriage was a court marriage at Bhagalpur performed at the
informant's own will, with none of the family present. Petitioner
No. 5 is a married woman living in her own matrimonial home. It
is submitted that the learned Magistrate passed the order
mechanically, without any scrutiny as to what each of the in-laws
other than the husband is said to have done.
8. The learned APP has opposed the prayer. He has
submitted that the case was investigated, the witnesses have
supported the FIR and the charge sheet has been submitted. The
demand is specific as to the amount and the article and whether it
was made is a matter for the trial.
9. The question is whether the FIR and the case diary,
taken as they stand, make out a case against these five petitioners.
10. The figure of Rs. 4,00,000 and the Bullet motorcycle
tells about the demand but does not specify which of the six asked
for it or on what occasion. The marriage was in January 2012 and
the FIR came in May 2016. The demand, the assault, the abuse and
the threat to the parents are all put in the mouths of six persons at

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13977 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
6/13
once, from the husband down to the married nanad at Karahara.
The witnesses of paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 do not carry the matter any
further. They repeat the FIR in the same order and they do not give
an occasion either.
11. Section 498A IPC punishes cruelty by the husband
or a relative of the husband and the case here is under clause (b) of
the Explanation, that is, harassment of the woman with a view to
coercing her or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for
property or valuable security. The harassment has to be by the
person who is to be tried. A demand recited against the whole
family in one sentence does not show what any one of them did.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay D. Jain and Others v. State
of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
2090 , dealing with a complaint against the in-laws, has held as
follows:-
“10. A perusal of the FIR and its
consideration in entirety indicates that statements of
a general nature have been made therein as against
the present appellants. The complainant states that
on 07.08.2021 when she had gone to her parental
house, she had received a call from her mother-in-
law raising a demand for clothes and jewellery.
When she returned to her matrimonial house on
30.08.2021, she had taken few clothes for the family
members. Except this statement, all other statements

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13977 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
7/13
are of a general nature as well as vague without any
particulars. There are other omnibus statements
made in the complaint without any particulars
whatsoever. It is also to be noted that for the purpose
of constituting an offence punishable under Section
498-A of the Penal Code, cruelty as indicated in the
Explanation to the said provision must be stated to
be inflicted. The cruelty caused by the husband and
his family members should be of such nature that it is
inflicted with the intention to cause grave injury or
drive the victim to commit suicide or inflict grave
injury to herself. Such allegations are absent in the
present case. We do not find that on a complete
reading of the complaint, a prima facie case for
proceeding under Section 498-A of the Penal Code
has been made out against the appellants.”
12. There the complainant had at least given a date and
named the mother-in-law as the person who made a demand on the
telephone and still the Hon'ble Apex Court did not find a prima
facie case against the in-laws. In the present FIR no petitioner is
named as having said or done anything on any day.
13. The case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and
Others vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2022) 6 SCC
599 went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court from an order of this
Court. The FIR there also spoke of a demand of dowry and named
the relatives of the husband. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13977 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
8/13
its earlier decisions on the subject, including K. Subba Rao vs.
State of Telangana , where it was said that the relatives of the
husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations
unless specific instances of their involvement are made out. It then
held as follows:
“17. The abovementioned decisions
clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous
instances expressed concern over the misuse of
Section 498-A IPC and 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. It is further manifest from the said
judgments that false implication by way of general
omnibus allegations made in the course of
matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result
in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court
by way of its judgments has warned the courts from
proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the
husband when no prima facie case is made out
against them.
18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon
a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019,
it is revealed that general allegations are levelled
against the appellants. The complainant alleged that
‘all accused harassed her mentally and threatened
her of terminating her pregnancy’. Furthermore, no
specific and distinct allegations have been made
against either of the appellants herein i.e. none of
the appellants have been attributed any specific role
in furtherance of the general allegations made
against them. This simply leads to a situation
wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by
each accused in furtherance of the offence. The
allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13977 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
9/13
can at best be said to have been made out on
account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is
concerned, since he has not appealed against the
order of the High Court, we have not examined the
veracity of allegations made against him. However,
as far as the appellants are concerned, the
allegations made against them being general and
omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.”
14. The position of petitioner No. 5 is the plainest. She is
married and lives in her own matrimonial home at Karahara. The
FIR does not say that she ever stayed at the house in Kolh
Manjhauli or came there at any point of time, much less what she
said there. Petitioner No. 3, the uncle of the husband, stands in the
same position. Except his place in the list of names, nothing is said
about him.
15. The father-in-law, the mother-in-law and the devar
are differently placed, in that they lived in the house at Kolh
Manjhauli where the informant lived after her marriage. This
requires to be noticed. Living in the same house may explain why
a person is named. It does not by itself make that person
answerable for what the FIR says the whole family did. Nothing is
said about any of the three beyond the general sentence. On
perusal of the materials on record, this Court does not find a single
act attributed to any of them separately.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13977 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
10/13
16. As to the Dowry Prohibition Act, Section 3 punishes
the giving or taking, or the abetment of giving or taking, of dowry.
Section 4 punishes the demanding of dowry, directly or indirectly,
from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or
bridegroom. Nobody says that anything was given or taken. The
marriage was in a court and the FIR does not say that any dowry
was settled or paid at the time. So far as Section 3 is concerned
there is nothing at all. Section 4 rests on the same general demand
which has already been dealt with. The learned Magistrate found
ample material in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the case diary, but those
paragraphs are the FIR said again by the witnesses. They name all
six together and they too do not give the occasion of any demand.
17. There is one more aspect. In Salib alias Shalu alias
Salim vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2023 INSC 687 , the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows in paragraph 26:-
“26. … 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
FIR with care and a little more closely. … In
frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a
duty to look into many other attending

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13977 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
11/13
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. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the
Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage
of a case but is empowered to take into account the
overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the
materials collected in the course of investigation…”
18. Read in that manner, the record shows a marriage in
a court at Bhagalpur in January 2012, away from both villages. For
more than four years after that there is no complaint by the
informant to anyone that is on the record, whether to the police or
in a panchayati or to any relative in writing. Then in May 2016 an
FIR is lodged naming every member of the husband's family,
including his married sister who lives in the informant's own
parental village and his uncle. The delay is explained in one line,
that the application was received late. Delay alone does not defeat
a complaint of this nature, as a married woman may suffer for long
in silence before she goes to the police. But when the complaint
that finally comes gives no instance against anybody and names
everybody, the long silence is a circumstance which the Court can
take into account along with the rest.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana
and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1)

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13977 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
12/13
SCC 335 has laid down, by way of illustration, the categories of
cases in which the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be
exercised. In paragraph 102 of the said judgment it has been held
as follows, so far as relevant:-
“102. … (1) Where the allegations made
in the first information report or the complaint,
even if they are 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.
…
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.”
20. The FIR and the statements collected in the
investigation, taken at their face value, do not disclose an offence
under Section 498A IPC or under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act against any of the five petitioners. The case so far
as they are concerned falls in the first and the third categories.
Allowing the prosecution to go on against them would be an abuse
of the process of the court.
21. Accordingly, the order dated 11.04.2017 passed by
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate V, Aurangabad in
Mali P.S. Case No. 21 of 2016 (G.R. No. 4516 of 2016, Trial No.
1906 of 2017), so far as it relates to the petitioners, is quashed. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13977 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
13/13
entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, so far as it relates to
the petitioners, is also quashed.
22. The husband, Amish Kumar Singh, has not
approached this Court and the allegations against him have not
been examined. The observations made in this order are confined
to the petitioners and shall not influence the trial against him,
which shall proceed on its own merits.
23. The petition is allowed. The interim protection
granted on 06.11.2018 merges in this order.
(Ansul, J)
abhishekkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 14.10.2026
Uploading Date
Transmission Date