Rakhi Jaiswal and Ors vs State Of Bihar and Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41958 of 2017
CNR No. BRHC010738002017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-25494 Year-2014 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
1. Rakhi Jaiswal and Ors Wife of Ravi Ranjan
2. Ravi Ranjan Kumar @ Ravi Ranjan Son of Bhagwat Bhagat Both resident
of Sushila Sadan, Shivajee Nagar, Purani Jakkanpur, P.S. Jakkanpur,District-
Patna.
3. Shobha Jaiswal@ Shobhas Kumari @ Pinki Daughter of Mohanlal Resident
of Mohalla Ghasiyari Tola Thana Chawk, P.S. Patna City, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar and Anr
2. Manisha Jaisawal Wife of late Somprakash Jaiswal Resident of Mohalla
Ghasiyari Tola Thana Chawk, P.S. Patna City at Present Residing at C/O- Dr.
Ram Naresh Singh, Parwati Path, P.S.- Patrakar Nagar, District- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Asif Khan, Advocate
Mr. Yasir Ashraf, Advocate
Ms. Sobiya Mushtaque, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Shailendra Pratap, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-10-2026

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
APP for the State.
2. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. The complaint was filed under Sections
120B, 323, 380, 406 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and cognizance has been taken under Sections
498A, 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41958 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
2/24
3. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order
dated 08.08.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 25494(C) of 2014, by which
cognizance has been taken against them and summons issued and
also for quashing of the entire proceeding of the complaint case so
far as they are concerned.
4. The complainant, Opposite Party No. 2, is the widow
of Som Prakash Jaiswal. She was married to him on 13.12.2006
and has a daughter and a son from the marriage. The complaint
names five accused. Accused No. 1 Meena Jaiswal is her mother-
in-law and Accused No. 2 Mohanlal is her father-in-law. Accused
No. 3 Shobha Jaiswal @ Pinki is the elder sister of her husband
and is unmarried. Accused No. 4 Rakhi Jaiswal is the younger
sister of her husband and is married to Accused No. 5 Ravi Ranjan.
Accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are the petitioners here, Rakhi Jaiswal
being petitioner No. 1, Ravi Ranjan petitioner No. 2 and Shobha
Jaiswal petitioner No. 3.
5. The Complainant alleged that her married life was
happy till her husband died in the year 2012 after a short illness at
Magadh Hospital, Patna. About a month after the shraddh the
behaviour of the mother-in-law, the two sisters-in-law and the
father-in-law changed. The parents-in-law neglected her and her

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41958 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
3/24
children, stopped their food and refused to maintain them. She had
to leave her six month old son with her mother. At a family
panchayati held on 16.12.2012 the parents-in-law refused to give
her shelter and it was decided that she would stay on in the
matrimonial home and maintain herself and her children. When
she then asked for her jewellery, which she says she had given to
the parents-in-law for safe keeping at the time of her husband's
death, they put it off and later refused. The complaint says that
since her stay in the house was not liked, all the accused in a
conspiracy put Rakhi with her two daughters in the house and got
the girls admitted in the school near the house. After that, the
accused and particularly Accused Nos. 1 to 4 abused her and her
parental family, took away her articles in her absence, cast
aspersions on her and goaded her to commit suicide. When she
complained to Ravi Ranjan he first said he would stay out of it and
later told her that if there was so much trouble she should live at
her parental home, that even in the matrimonial home she would
have to live at her own expense. He asked her not to call him
again. The complaint also says that from the beginning the
intention of Accused Nos. 4 and 5 has been to grab her rights and
share. As to 01.03.2014, the allegation is that Accused Nos. 1 and
3 caught hold of both her hands and Accused No. 4 knocked her

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41958 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
4/24
head against the wall and hit her with the shoe of the complainant's
daughter. Her father and brother went to Chowk Police Station on
02.03.2014 and the police came to the house, scolded the accused
and warned them. On the next day she was again abused and
beaten and the father-in-law forcibly left her at her parental home
with a threat. At Patrakar Nagar Police Station she was told to go
to the court and so the complaint was filed.
6. On solemn affirmation on 26.03.2014 the complainant
said that her parents-in-law did not like her staying in the house.
She kept the younger child with her mother and stayed in the
matrimonial home with the elder. She also stated that the mother-
in-law, the father-in-law, Shobha and Rakhi together abused her,
assaulted her and told her to die, saying that she had eaten up her
husband. She further stated that at the panchayati of 16.12.2012
the parents-in-law refused to maintain her and told her that she had
been married to their son and not to the house and she should leave
the house. When she phoned Ravi Ranjan he refused to listen. The
chain and ring she gave to the father-in-law during her husband's
illness and the mangalsutra and chain she gave to the mother-in-
law after his death were not returned. She also said that the land
and the key of the vehicle in the name of her husband were not
given to her. She gave the account of 01.03.2014 as in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41958 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
5/24
complaint. Answering the court, she said that partition has not
taken place and that the in-laws want to oust her and that is why
they are behaving with her in this manner.
7. Two enquiry witnesses were examined. EW-1 Arjun
Prasad Jaiswal is related to both sides. The mother-in-law is his
cousin sister and the complainant is the daughter of his brother-in-
law. The complaint itself says that the marriage was settled
through him. He has said in general terms that after the death of
the husband the accused used to beat the complainant, that he tried
to mediate and was also misbehaved with and that the accused
have kept all her articles. Answering the court, he said that the
occurrence took place in his presence, but he does not say which
occurrence, on what date or what any of the petitioners did. EW-2
Abhishek Kumar is the brother of the complainant. According to
him everything was normal while his brother-in-law was alive.
After his death all the accused together began to trouble his sister
and tried to throw her out of the house and oust her from the
property. Rakhi Jaiswal came and started living in her parental
home. They stopped her food and asked her why she did not go
and get herself cut on the railway line close by. His sister was
badly beaten on 01.03.2014 and on 03.03.2014 the father-in-law
left her and her children at their house with a threat. He has also

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41958 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
6/24
said that the jewellery given to the parents-in-law has not been
returned.
8. By the order dated 08.08.2014 the learned Magistrate
found a prima facie case under Sections 498A, 323 and 504 read
with Section 34 IPC and summoned all the accused. On Sections
120B, 380 and 406 IPC, which were the sections on conspiracy,
the taking away of articles and the jewellery, the learned
Magistrate recorded that sufficient material was not available. This
petition was filed in the year 2017 and on 15.09.2017 this Court
stayed the further proceeding of the complaint case.
9. Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are the two sisters of the
deceased and the husband of one of them and they have been made
accused only because of the relationship. There is no demand of
dowry and the quarrel is over the property of the deceased.
According to him the complainant was living separately from her
parents-in-law even in the lifetime of her husband. After his death
the father-in-law helped her get about Rs. 35 lakh from LIC,
mutual funds and brokerage dues. Petitioner No. 1, being a joint
holder of the account in which the brokerage of the deceased
came, transferred that amount to the complainant. The trouble
started when the father-in-law objected to her selling four and a

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41958 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
7/24
half katha of land which had been purchased in the name of his
son. He submitted that no overt act is attributed to the petitioners
and the enquiry witnesses are hearsay witnesses who do not
support the complaint.
10. The prayer was opposed by the learned APP for the
State and by Mr. Shailendra Pratap, learned counsel for the
Opposite Party No. 2. It was submitted that the complaint, the
statement on solemn affirmation and the enquiry witnesses
disclose a prima facie case, that a specific role has been given to
petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 in the occurrence of 01.03.2014 and that
the truth of the allegations can only be tested at the trial. No
counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Opposite Party
No. 2.
11. This Court has gone through the complaint, the
statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the
statements of the two enquiry witnesses. The complaint is not
about dowry. There is no demand of dowry or of any property or
valuable security anywhere in the complaint or in the statements.
What the complainant asked for after the death of her husband and
was refused was maintenance, her jewellery, the land and the
vehicle standing in the name of her husband and her right to
remain in the house. Before the learned Magistrate she said in so

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41958 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
8/24
many words that partition has not taken place and that the in-laws
want to oust her and that is why they behave with her in this
manner. Her brother says the same. The complaint goes further and
says that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had their eye on her share from
the beginning. Read as a whole, the case is about the place of a
widow in her husband's family and her share in what he left
behind.
12. Section 498A IPC punishes cruelty by the husband
or a relative of the husband. The Explanation to the section gives
the meaning of cruelty. Clause (b) of the Explanation deals with
harassment to coerce the woman or her relatives to meet an
unlawful demand for property or valuable security. There is no
such demand here and clause (b) is out of the way. Under clause
(a) the conduct has to be wilful and of such a nature as is likely to
drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to her life, limb or health. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sanjay D. Jain and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2090 , 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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41958 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
9/24
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 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.”
13. In that case there was at least one specific demand
for clothes and jewellery made on the telephone by the mother-in-
law and still no prima facie case under Section 498A was found
against the in-laws. Here the material against the petitioners is
abuse and taunts said to have come from all the accused together
and the refusal to return her articles. The articles, on her own
showing, were handed over to the parents-in-law and not to any of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41958 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
10/24
the petitioners. The words asking her to die and the taunt about the
railway line are put in the mouth of all the accused at once,
without the time, the place or the person who said them. This is
not conduct of the kind described in clause (a) which can be
fastened on any of the petitioners.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar
alias Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in
(2022) 6 SCC 599 , which arose from an order of this Court, has
held as follows:
“11. Before we delve into greater detail on
the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes
pertinent to mention that incorporation of Section 498-
A IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon
a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by
facilitating rapid State intervention. However, it is
equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial
litigation in the country has also increased
significantly and there is a greater disaffection and
friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now,
more than ever. This has resulted in an increased
tendency to employ provisions such as Section 498-A
IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against
the husband and his relatives.
12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh
Sharma v. State of U.P., has observed : (SCC pp. 478-
79, para 14)

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41958 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
11/24
‘14. Section 498-A was inserted in the
statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at
the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife
particularly when such cruelty had potential to result
in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the
Statement of Objects and Reasons of Act 46 of 1983.
The expression “cruelty” in Section 498-A covers
conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide
or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger
to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet
unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern that
large number of cases continue to be filed under
Section 498-A alleging harassment of married women.
We have already referred to some of the statistics from
the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier
noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed
in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of
such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing
of the complaint, implications and consequences are
not visualised. At times such complaints lead to
uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but
also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin
the chances of settlement.’
13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of
this Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, it was
also observed : (SCC p. 276, para 4)
‘4. There is a phenomenal increase in
matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of
marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section
498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41958 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
12/24
combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the
hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that
Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable
offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the
provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield
by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to
get the husband and his relatives arrested under this
provision. In quite a number of cases, bedridden
grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their
sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.’
14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of
Jharkhand, it has also been observed : (SCC pp. 676-
77, paras 32-36)
‘32. It is a matter of common experience that
most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are
filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues
without proper deliberations. We come across a large
number of such complaints which are not even bona
fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same
time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of
dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have
enormous social responsibility and obligation to
ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined
or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated
versions of small incidents should not be reflected in
the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are
filed either on their advice or with their concurrence.
The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble
profession must maintain its noble traditions and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41958 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
13/24
should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a
basic human problem and must make serious
endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an
amicable resolution of that human problem. They must
discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to
ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the
society remains intact. The members of the Bar should
also ensure that one complaint should not lead to
multiple cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the
complaint the implications and consequences are not
properly visualised by the complainant that such
complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment,
agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his
close relations.
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find
out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the
innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in
majority of these complaints. The tendency of
implicating the husband and all his immediate
relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after
the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to
ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be
extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these
complaints and must take pragmatic realities into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases.
The allegations of harassment of husband's close
relations who had been living in different cities and
never visited or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided would have an entirely different

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41958 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
14/24
complexion. The allegations of the complaint are
required to be scrutinised with great care and
circumspection.
36. Experience reveals that long and
protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony
and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties.
It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases
filed by the complainant if the husband or the
husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few
days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable
settlement altogether. The process of suffering is
extremely long and painful.’
15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. it was
observed : (SCC p. 749, para 21)
‘21. It would be relevant at this stage to take
note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in
G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad wherein also in a
matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High
Court should have quashed the complaint arising out
of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members
had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which
was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed
therein with which we entirely agree that : (SCC p.
698, para 12)
“12. … There has been an outburst of
matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a
sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to
enable the young couple to settle down in life and live
peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly
erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41958 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
15/24
in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the
family are also involved with the result that those who
could have counselled and brought about
rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being
arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are
many other reasons which need not be mentioned here
for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the
parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate
their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of
fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years
and years to conclude and in that process the parties
lose their ‘young’ days in chasing their cases in
different courts.”
The view taken by the Judges in this matter
was that the courts would not encourage such
disputes.’
16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of
Telangana, it was also observed that : (SCC p. 454,
para 6)
‘6. … The courts should be careful in
proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes
pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths.
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.’
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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41958 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
16/24
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 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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41958 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
17/24
against them being general and omnibus, do not
warrant prosecution.”
15. Petitioner No. 2, Ravi Ranjan, is the husband of the
younger sister of the deceased. The complaint gives his address at
Mithapur and does not say that he ever came to the house at
Ghasiyari Tola during the period in question. What is said against
him is that when the complainant telephoned him he first said he
would keep away from the matter and later, when the assault
began, spoke harshly to her and said that if there was so much
trouble she should go and live at her parental home. He also asked
her not to call. In her statement on solemn affirmation she adds
that after the occurrence of 01.03.2014 she phoned him again and
he told her to leave the house. The only other line against him is
the line about his intention to grab her share. EW-1 does not name
him at all. None of this is cruelty within the meaning of Section
498A IPC and none of it is hurt or insult under Sections 323 and
504 IPC.
16. Petitioner No. 3, Shobha Jaiswal, is the unmarried
sister of the deceased and lives with her parents. Petitioner No. 1,
Rakhi Jaiswal, is the married sister. According to the complaint she
was brought to stay in the house with her two daughters after the
panchayati. Against both of them most of the complaint is in the
same general words used for all the accused. So far as Section 504

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41958 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
18/24
IPC is concerned, the abuse and the taunts are attributed to all the
accused together, with no words put in the mouth of either
petitioner on any date. One incident is different. For 01.03.2014
the complaint and the statement on solemn affirmation say that the
mother-in-law and Shobha held the hands of the complainant and
Rakhi knocked her head against the wall and hit her with the shoe
of the complainant's daughter. This is the only place where any act
of violence is attached to any of the petitioners and it requires to
be noticed carefully. Her father went to Chowk Police Station the
next day and came back with the police. On her own showing the
police only scolded the accused and warned them. No report of
that visit, no injury report and no paper of any treatment was
placed before the learned Magistrate. EW-1 does not speak of this
incident in particular. EW-2 says that his sister was badly beaten
that day but does not say which of the accused did what. The
learned Magistrate took cognizance under Section 323 IPC, which
is for simple hurt. The complaint was filed after the father-in-law
had left the complainant at her parental home on 03.03.2014 and it
carries in the same breath her case about her share.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salib alias Shalu
alias Salim vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2023 INSC
687 , has held that where a proceeding is said to be frivolous or

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41958 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
19/24
vexatious or instituted with an ulterior motive, the Court owes a
duty to look into the other attending circumstances emerging from
the record over and above the averments and, if need be, to read
between the lines. Paragraph 26 of the said judgment is as follows:
“26. 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 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. 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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41958 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
20/24
account the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the
materials collected in the course of investigation. Take
for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been
registered over a period of time. It is in the background
of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs
assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of
wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge
as alleged.”
18. When the record of this case is read in that way,
what emerges is this. A widow with two small children was left in
a house of which there had been no partition. At the panchayati the
parents-in-law refused to maintain her and asked her to leave. Her
jewellery, the land and the vehicle were held back. According to
her, the married daughter of the house was brought in to stay with
her own children. The quarrel which followed was about who
would keep the house and the property. The complaint names
everybody in the family, including the married daughter's husband
who lived elsewhere. In its own words it says that two of the
accused had their eye on her share from the beginning. The
incident of 01.03.2014, unsupported by any injury report or
independent material and coming at the end of this quarrel, does
not change the character of the complaint so far as the petitioners
are concerned.
19. The claims of the complainant to her stridhan, to a
share in what her husband left and to a roof over her head are

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41958 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
21/24
claims the law recognises. But the criminal court is not the forum
for them. A Magistrate trying a case under Sections 498A, 323 and
504 IPC cannot give her a share in the property, cannot put her in
possession of the house and cannot fix her maintenance in that
case. As already noted above, the learned Magistrate himself found
no sufficient material under Section 406 IPC in respect of the
jewellery. If the prosecution of the two sisters of the deceased and
the husband of one of them is allowed to go on, the only use it can
be put to is to press them into giving in on the property. A criminal
prosecution is not meant for that.
20. In State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and
Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has laid down the categories of cases in which the power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be exercised to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Paragraph 102 of the said judgment is as follows:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation
of the various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by
this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226
or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
which we have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be exercised
either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41958 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
22/24
not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined
and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines
or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of
myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(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.
(2) Where the allegations in the first
information report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(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.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on
the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision
in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41958 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
23/24
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge.”
21. So far as Section 498A IPC is concerned, the
complaint and the statements, taken at their face value, do not
make out the offence against any of the petitioners and the case
falls in the first category. So far as the petitioners are concerned,
the whole proceeding falls in the seventh category as well, being a
proceeding instituted with an ulterior motive to use the criminal
court as a lever in a dispute over property.
22. In the result, the order dated 08.08.2014 passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case
No. 25494(C) of 2014, so far as it relates to the petitioners, is
quashed. The entire proceeding of the complaint case, so far as it
relates to the petitioners, is also quashed.
23. The parents-in-law, Accused Nos. 1 and 2, have not
come to this Court. The observations made in this judgment are
confined to the petitioners and the case against the remaining
accused shall proceed on its own merits. Nothing said here shall
stand in the way of the complainant in pursuing her claims to her
stridhan, her share in the property and her residence before the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41958 of 2017 dt.28-10-2026
24/24
appropriate forum. Those claims shall be decided on their own
merits.
24. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.
(Ansul, J)
abhishekkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 13.10.2026
Uploading Date
Transmission Date