PANKAJ KUMAR BHARTI @ PANKAJ BHARTI vs State Of Bihar and Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20158 of 2018
CNR No. BRHC010338472018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-181 Year-2017 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Gaya
======================================================
PANKAJ KUMAR BHARTI @ PANKAJ BHARTI S/o Brijnath Prasad, R/o
House No. 25, Adarsh Nagar, Near Thakur Prasad Community Hall, P.O.P.S.-
Kidwaipuri, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar and Anr
2. Nitu Kumari W/o Deepak Kumar Verma , R/o Village- Tika Bigha, P.S.-
Bodhgaya, District- Gaya Currently R/o D/o Ram Nandan Prasad R/o
Village- Punaan, P.S.- Wazirganj, District- Gaya.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Niraj Kumar, Advocate
Mr.Ashhar Mustafa, Advocate
Mr.Prashant Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr.J.N.Thakur, APP
For the O.P.No.2: Mr.Shailesh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-10-2026
Heard Mr. Niraj Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr. Gautam, learned APP for the State
and Mr. Shailesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Opposite Party
No. 2.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner seeks quashing of the
order dated 03.01.2018 passed by the learned Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in Complaint Case No. 181 of 2017. The
complaint was filed for the offences under Sections 323, 379, 506

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20158 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
2/14
and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Cognizance
has been taken only under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against three of the
five accused and they were summoned. The petitioner is one of the
three.
3. The Opposite Party No. 2 is the complainant. She was
married to Deepak Kumar Verma @ Santu in the year 2014. Her
complaint, which bears the stamp of 09.02.2017, names five
persons. Accused No. 1 is the husband. Accused No. 2 Baijnath
Prasad @ Brijnath Prasad is the father-in-law and Accused No. 3
Sunaina Devi the mother-in-law. Accused No. 4 is the petitioner,
the elder brother of the husband, that is, the Bhaisur of the
complainant. Accused No. 5 Archana Vibhor is the wife of the
petitioner.
4. According to the complaint her father gave five lakh
rupees in cash, jewellery of about two lakh rupees and articles like
sofa set, fridge and T.V. worth about one lakh fifty thousand rupees
at the marriage. For two years the married life went on well and a
son was born. Some time after the birth of the child all the accused
started torturing her. One day all of them gathered in a room and
called her and the petitioner told her that she had a son, that some

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20158 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
3/14
side business had to be started for bringing him up properly and
that for this she should get three lakh rupees and a motorcycle
from her father. She answered that her father had already given all
he could in the marriage and that they were being greedy. Accused
No. 3 then said that she would not listen like this, that she talked
too much, that she should be beaten and her food stopped. Accused
No. 1 caught her hair, she fell down and all the accused beat her
with fists and kicks. For about a month she was given food once a
day. In March 2016 her parents and the witnesses came to village
Tika Bigha but the accused stuck to the demand. Her father then
gave fifty thousand rupees in the hand of the petitioner, asking
them to keep his daughter well. All the accused gave the father six
months to meet the demand, failing which they would leave her
and get the husband married again. When the six months passed
the torture started again and Accused No. 5 said that her father was
a cheat, his time was over and he had not brought the money.
Accused No. 1 said that she would not listen like this and all of
them beat her and threw her on the ground. On 27.01.2017 all the
accused beat her, took away her jewellery worth six lakh rupees
and clothes worth twenty thousand rupees and drove her out with
her son at about 11 A.M., telling her to come back with money

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20158 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
4/14
from her father. The period of occurrence is given as January 2016
to 28.01.2017.
5. On solemn affirmation on 22.02.2017 the account
given was not the same. The complainant said that from January
2016 “they” used to tell her to bring three lakh rupees and a
motorcycle from her father. When she said she could not ask for it,
her Bhaisur said that money was needed to bring up her child
properly. She still refused. The mother-in-law then said that her
food be stopped and the husband dragged her by the hair, threw
her down and beat her with kicks and fists. They also took away
her mobile. She told her father everything and he came with
people from her parental side and tried to make them understand
but they stuck to the demand. Her father gave fifty thousand
rupees to her mother-in-law, saying that it was their duty to keep
his daughter well, that he would help them in future and he took
six months’ time. When the six months passed and her father had
not sent the money her gotni , the wife of the petitioner, started
saying that her father was a liar. She replied that her father had
given five lakh rupees in cash, jewellery and articles worth one
and a half lakh rupees at the marriage. On 27.01.2017 all of them
beat her, took her articles and jewellery and turned her out. She
has a son two years old. After she came to her parental home her

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20158 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
5/14
father again went to her matrimonial home to settle the matter but
they did not agree and so she came to the court. Answering the
Court she said that the child was with her and that her husband
was an operator in the electricity board.
6. Three enquiry witnesses, Ramdahin Yadav, Ram
Nandan Prasad and Chandradev Prasad, are said to have been
examined. Their statements are not part of the paper book. The
impugned order records that the learned Magistrate perused the
complaint, the statement on solemn affirmation and the evidence
of these witnesses and found sufficient ground to proceed against
Deepak Kumar Verma @ Santu, Sunaina Devi and Pankaj Bharti.
7. The petition was filed in March 2018. By the order
dated 05.08.2025 this Court stayed the further proceeding against
the petitioner, the Bhaisur , from that date. The learned S.D.J.M.,
Gaya was asked to proceed against the other accused and to
conclude the case within six months, it being an old case. The
status report dated 08.10.2025 shows that the trial against the other
accused is at the stage of evidence after charge, the charge under
Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
having been framed on 21.08.2023. One witness has been
examined and another partly cross examined.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20158 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
6/14
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the petitioner is the elder brother of the husband and is in the
service of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation,
posted at Mahua in the district of Vaishali and that he lives with
his own family. On 27.01.2017 he was on duty at Mahua and the
attendance sheet of the month and the daily report of the godown
for that date have been annexed. The quarrel, according to him,
was between the husband and the wife and it was settled between
them. For this he relies on a panchayati paper signed by the
complainant, a shapathnama of the husband dated 14.05.2017 and
an ekrarnama dated 21.08.2017 executed by the husband and the
wife. He submitted that the petitioner has been made an accused
only because he is the elder brother and that the case falls in the
first and the seventh categories laid down in Bhajan Lal .
9. The prayer has been opposed by the learned APP for
the State and by learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2. It
was submitted that the demand of three lakh rupees and a
motorcycle is put directly in the mouth of the petitioner, that the
money given by the father reached his hand and that the plea of his
being on duty elsewhere is a defence to be taken at the trial. No
counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Opposite Party
No. 2.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20158 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
7/14
10. This is not a complaint in which the petitioner is
mentioned only in a list. The demand of three lakh rupees and a
motorcycle is put in his mouth . The petitioner is alleged to have
stated that she should demand money for well betterment of her
child. The rest of the complaint, so far as he is concerned, speaks
only of “all the accused”. In the considered view of this Court
asking a lady to seek money for betterment of her son does not
make out a case on which the petitioner should be sent for trial.
11. The statement on solemn affirmation is the
complainant’s own account given on oath. It is on the complaint,
that statement and the enquiry evidence that the Magistrate decides
whether there is ground to proceed. Reading the complaint along
with that statement is not weighing evidence. Both are her own
words and both were before the learned Magistrate. On oath the
demand is a demand of “they”, running from January 2016. What
is left for the petitioner is a remark, made when she had already
refused, that money was needed to bring up her child properly.
Nothing further is said against him. The stopping of food is the
mother-in-law’s word and the beating that day is by the husband.
The fifty thousand rupees, which in the complaint reached the
hand of the petitioner, went on oath to the mother-in-law. So the
one act that could have shown the petitioner receiving anything

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20158 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
8/14
from her family has been placed by the complainant herself with
another accused. After six months the taunt is from the petitioner’s
wife. For 27.01.2017 the statement on oath says only that all of
them beat her and turned her out.
12. Under the Explanation to Section 498A IPC cruelty
means either willful conduct of a nature likely to drive the woman
to suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or
health, which is clause (a), or harassment with a view to coercing
her or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or
valuable security, which is clause (b). This is a dowry complaint
and clause (b) is the one to be looked at. Harassment with a view
to coercing is conduct directed at forcing the demand to be met. A
remark by the husband’s elder brother on one undated day about
the need of money for the child, followed by nothing from him,
does not answer that description. The food being stopped, the
beating, the ultimatum and the turning out are either attributed to
others or to everybody in a lump. In Sanjay D. Jain and Others v.
State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 2090 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after noticing that there was
one specific demand of clothes and jewellery made over the
telephone by the mother-in-law, has held as follows:-
“10. … It is also to be noted that for the
purpose of constituting an offence punishable

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20158 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
9/14
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. Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the section
punishes the demand of dowry, directly or indirectly, from the
parents or relatives of the bride. Whether the remark about the
child’s upbringing amounts to such a demand by the petitioner
need not be gone into. The demand, on oath, is of the family as a
whole, made from January 2016 onwards. The complaint and the
statement on oath differ on the only two points on which the
petitioner is set apart from the others. A summoning order resting
on that much required at least some consideration of the role of
each accused. The impugned order has none.
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 this very State, took note of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20158 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
10/14
the tendency to array every relative of the husband in matrimonial
cases. After noticing K. Subba Rao vs. State of Telangana , it has
been 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. … 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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20158 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
11/14
and can at best be said to have been made out on
account of small skirmishes.”
15. Much was said about the posting of the petitioner at
Mahua and his duty there on 27.01.2017. Those papers are matters
of defence. Their worth cannot be judged in this jurisdiction.
16. In Salib alias Shalu alias Salim v. State of U.P. and
Others reported in 2023 INSC 687 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held that the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is not confined to the averments alone and may look at the
overall circumstances emerging from the record. Paragraph 26 of
the said judgment reads in part as follows:-
“26. … 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 account the
overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20158 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
12/14
materials collected in the course of
investigation….”
17. The record contains three papers which the Opposite
Party No. 2 has not disputed, though she has been represented here
since the year 2023. On 14.05.2017, about three months after the
complaint, the husband gave a shapathnama that he would keep
his wife with honour once she withdrew Complaint Case No. 181
of 2017. On 21.08.2017 the husband and the wife executed an
ekrarnama on stamp paper. It records that differences had arisen
between them, that well wishers had brought about a settlement,
that the husband would keep her with respect, that rupees one lakh
forty seven thousand of household money lying in her account
would go back to him and that both would withdraw their cases.
The undated panchayati paper signed by the complainant speaks of
quarrels over household matters with her husband, father-in-law,
mother-in-law and Bhaisur and says that the two wished to live
together in peace. The settlement did not last and the case against
the husband and the mother-in-law is going on. Why it failed is not
for this Court to see. These papers are not the basis of the
conclusion reached. What they show is that the dispute, as the
parties themselves understood it, was between the husband and the
wife and over the money of the household.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20158 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
13/14
18. In State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and
Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , the first of the
categories set out in paragraph 102 is as follows:-
“(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.”
19. Taken at face value and read as the complainant put
them on oath, the allegations do not make out an offence under
Section 498A IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
against the petitioner. The case falls in the first category. On the
seventh category, which was also pressed, no finding is required.
20. Accordingly, the order dated 03.01.2018 passed by
the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in Complaint
Case No. 181 of 2017, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is
quashed. All further proceedings arising from it, so far as they
relate to the petitioner, are also quashed.
21. The husband and the mother-in-law have not come
to this Court. The case against them shall go on in terms of the
order dated 05.08.2025 and nothing said here shall affect the trial
against them.
22. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20158 of 2018 dt.27-10-2026
14/14
23. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Sub
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya for information.
(Ansul, J)
abhishekkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 14.10.2026
Uploading Date
Transmission Date