Bina Devi and Ors vs State Of Bihar and Anr
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50906 of 2016
CNR No. BRHC010462222016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-705 Year-2008 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Gaya
======================================================
1. Bina Devi, w/o Late Krishna Nand Dhokari
2. Ganesh Lal Dhokari, s/o Late Krishna Nand Dhokari
3. Tiru Lal Dhokari, s/o Late Krishna Nand Dhokari
4. Viru Lal Dhokari, s/o Late Krishna Nand Dhokari
5. Dhananjay Lal Dhokari, s/o Late Krishna Nand Dhokari
6. Laljee Dhokari, s/o Late Krishna Nand Dhokari
All Resident of Mohalla- Chand Choura, Vishnupad Road, Krishana
Dwarika, P.S.- Civil Lines, District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ruby Devi, w/o Sri Madava Nand Dhokari @ Bachcha Jee
Resident of Mohalla- Chand Choura, Vishnupad Road, Krishana Dwarika,
P.S.- Civil Lines, District- Gaya.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Mrigendra Pratap Singh, Advocate
Mrs. Laxmi Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 13-10-2026
The present application under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short Cr.P.C. ) has been filed for
quashing the order dated 02.09.2008 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya in Complaint Case No. 705
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50906 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
2/17
of 2008, whereby cognizance has been taken and processes have
been issued against the petitioners for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ( in
short I.P.C. ).
2. The prosecution case, as set out in the complaint
petition, is that the complainant/opposite party No. 2, namely,
Ruby Devi, stated that her marriage with Madhava Nand
Dhokari was solemnized in the year 1999. It was alleged that at
the time of marriage, her father had incurred marriage expenses
of about Rs. 50,000/- and had also given ornaments worth
approximately Rs. 1,00,000/-. It was further alleged that after
the marriage, she went to her matrimonial home and was
blessed with two children.
3. It is further alleged that after some time, the
accused persons started making demand of Rs. 50,000/- and
subjected the complainant/opposite party No. 2 to torture on
account of the alleged demand. According to the complaint,
when the complainant/opposite party No. 2 expressed her
inability to fulfill the demand, the accused persons allegedly
assaulted and tortured her. The complaint further contains an
allegation that on 13.05.2008, the accused persons assaulted her,
snatched her ornaments and clothes and attempted to kill her by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50906 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
3/17
sprinkling kerosene oil upon her.
4. On the basis of the complaint, an inquiry was
conducted. The complainant/opposite party No. 2 was examined
on oath on 21.05.2008 and four witnesses were examined on her
behalf in support of allegation. Thereafter, upon consideration of
the materials available on record, the learned Magistrate, vide
order dated 02.09.2008, proceeded to issue summons/process
against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A and
120-B of the I.P.C.
5. Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the entire
criminal proceeding is an outcome of a family dispute relating
to partition of family property. It is submitted that the husband
of the complainant/opposite party No. 2, namely, Madhava
Nand Dhokari, had already separated from his mother and
brothers and was living separately with the complainant and
their two children.
6. It is further submitted that, apart from the present
complaint, proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. had
also been initiated in relation to the family dispute. A partition
dispute was pending between the members of the family, which
was ultimately settled before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Gaya,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50906 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
4/17
in Pre-Litigation Case No. 39 of 2007 on 13.12.2007.
7. It is the specific case of the petitioners that a
compromise petition was filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat
and was accepted. Separate takhta was allotted to each member
of the family, including the husband of the complainant. The
petitioners have relied upon the order of the Permanent Lok
Adalat and the compromise petition in support of their
contention.
8. Learned counsel further submits that the husband
of the complainant did not appear before the Permanent Lok
Adalat despite efforts, but his share was nevertheless
demarcated and kept available to him. It is contended that
thereafter, owing to the existing family dispute, the present
criminal case came to be instituted against the petitioners.
9. It is also submitted that the husband of the
complainant/opposite party No. 2, who according to the petition
was the person allegedly subjected to the family dispute, was
himself not arrayed as an accused in the complaint petition.
However, the learned Magistrate, while passing the impugned
order, is stated to have taken cognizance against him also. The
petitioners contend that the allegations against them are general
in nature and have been levelled in the backdrop of the existing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50906 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
5/17
family/property dispute.
10. Learned counsel submits that the
complainant/opposite party No. 2 had lived peacefully for about
nine years after her marriage without making any complaint
against the petitioners. It is submitted that she had been living
separately with her husband and two sons and that the husband
was himself not maintaining good relations with his mother and
brothers. According to the petitioners, in such circumstances,
the allegation of a demand of Rs. 50,000/- by the petitioners is
inherently improbable.
11. It is submitted that subsequent to the institution
of the present complaint by wife, a Civil Lines P.S. Case No.
241 of 2010 was also instituted against the petitioners and others
for offences including Section 307 of the I.P.C. by her husband,
i.e. , son of the petitioner No. 1, in which the police submitted a
final report, but the learned Magistrate disagreed with the police
report and took cognizance of offence under Sections 323 & 504
read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The petitioners rely upon this
circumstance to contend that the criminal proceedings have been
instituted on account of the continuing family dispute.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners, thus,
submits that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50906 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
6/17
petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court
and that the impugned order as well as the consequential
criminal proceeding deserve to be quashed in exercise of the
inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C.
13. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State opposes the present application and submits that the
allegations made in the complaint petition, taken at their face
value, disclose the commission of offences under Sections 498-
A and 120-B of the I.P.C. It is further submitted that the learned
Magistrate, after considering the complaint and the materials
available during the inquiry, has rightly taken cognizance and
issued process against the accused persons.
14. It is submitted that the defence of the
petitioners, including the alleged family/property dispute and
the subsequent compromise, cannot be examined in detail at this
stage and the truthfulness of the allegations is a matter to be
considered by the learned Court below during trial.
15. Accordingly, learned counsel for the State
submits that no ground for interference under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. is made out and the application deserves to be dismissed.
16. Despite service of notice and filing of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50906 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
7/17
vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No. 2, none has
appeared to represent Opposite Party No. 2 when the matter was
taken up for hearing.
17. At this stage, it would be germane to quote
section 498(A) of the I.P.C.:-
“498A. Husband or relative of husband
of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of
the husband of a woman, subjects such woman
to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to three years and
shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.— For the purpose of this section,
“cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether mental
or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or
any person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security
or is on account of failure by her or any
person related to her to meet such demand.”
18. The mere existence of matrimonial discord,
therefore, cannot automatically result in criminal liability under
Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. The allegations must disclose the
ingredients of the offence against the particular accused.
19. In the present case, the allegations made against
the petitioners have to be examined individually.
20. The petitioners before this Court are the
parents, sisters and other relatives of the husband, viz. , petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50906 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
8/17
No. 1, Bina Devi, is the mother-in-law of the
complainant/opposite party No. 2; petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 namely
Ganesh Lal Dhokari, Tiru Lal Dhokari, Viru Lal Dhokari,
Dhananjay Lal Dhokari and Laljee Dhokari are the brothers-in-
law of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 respectively.
21. On bare perusal of the averments made in the
complaint petition as well as from the statements recorded in
course of inquiry, it is manifestly evident that the allegations
against the petitioners are generic, vague and omnibus in nature
without specifying, with respect to each of them, as to what
were their acts and conduct towards the complainant/opposite
party No. 2 which could be termed to be cruelty.
22. The complaint contains allegations merely
concerning cruelty in the matrimonial household. However,
insofar as the petitioners are concerned, the allegations do not
disclose with sufficient specificity, the individual acts
attributable to each of them so as to constitute the offences
alleged.
23. The instant case, from perusal of the averments
made in the complaint and the documents brought on record,
appears to be a unique case where complainant-wife has filed a
complaint case arraying all her surviving in-laws, excepting her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50906 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
9/17
husband, and the learned Magistrate strangely took cognizance
of offences under Sections 498-A and 120-B of the I.P.C even
against the husband.
24. The conduct of the husband is also very
suspicious since beginning. After the present complaint case,
lodged by his wife, he institutes a police case under Section 307
of the I.P.C. against his widow mother, brothers and sisters in
which police submitted final form, but the learned Magistrate,
differing with the final form, took cognizance of the offences
under Section 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.
25. Thus, the instant case is the perfect illustration
of misuse of the Section 498-A of the I.P.C., which has been
incorporated in the Penal Code for providing a mechanism and
safeguard to a wife, who in the event of suffering cruelty from
either her husband or relatives of her husband, may approach
the law enforcing agencies or the Court for redressal of her
grievance and for punishing the culprit for committing cruelty
upon her. But here, the husband of complainant/opposite party
No. 2, just in order to have lion’s share in the property, got the
case filed against his own family members including widow
mother through his wife in order to satisfy his nefarious desire
to have share in the ancestral property.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50906 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
10/17
26. Thus, the instant case is not a case of cruelty
upon married women by her husband or in-laws, but it has been
used as an instrument and tool of oppression to persecute in-
laws to satiate the lust and greed of her husband.
27. A matrimonial dispute, as alleged, by itself,
can’t furnish a basis for mechanically implicating every relative
of the husband. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. , reported in
(2022) 6 SCC 599 , wherein it was held that:
“In view of 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, the
Courts should be very careful in proceeding
against the distant relatives. 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.”
28. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
Arti Mehta & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.,
reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 933 , while raising concern
over the growing tendency amongst the complainant/opposite
party No. 2 of falsely implicating the relatives in order to put
undue pressure, has held as follows:
“That the Courts are required to exercise
greater caution and carefully scrutinise
whether the allegations genuinely disclose
the commission of cognizable offences
against each accused so implicated. The
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50906 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
11/17
criminal law cannot be permitted to be set in
motion against every relative of the husband
merely on the basis of generalised and
omnibus allegations lacking a specific
factual foundation.”
29. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of
the present case, this Court finds that the allegations against the
petitioners do not contain the necessary particulars from which
their individual participation in the alleged offences can
reasonably be inferred.
30. Since the petitioners are in-laws of the
complainant/opposite party No. 2, the mere allegation that the
accused persons subjected her to cruelty without sufficiently
identifying the specific role played by each of the accused
cannot, by itself, justify the initiation and continuation of a
criminal prosecution against all such relatives and family
members of the husband.
31. Where the allegations against the individual
relatives are general and omnibus and do not disclose their
specific role, continuation of prosecution against them would
not advance the cause of justice.
32. After considering the allegations made in the
complaint petition and the materials brought on record, this
Court is required to examine whether the ingredients necessary
to constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50906 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
12/17
120-B of the I.P.C. are disclosed against the petitioners. In this
regard, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Rajeev Vs. State of Kerala, reported in 2023 SCC
onLine SC 1470 while referring to State through
Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT Vs. Nalini & Ors., reported
in (1999) 5 SCC 253 , are relevant. The principles governing the
offence of criminal conspiracy, as summarised in the said
decision, are reproduced hereinbelow:
“i. Conspiracy is when two or more
persons agree to do or cause to be done an
illegal act or legal act by illegal means.
ii. The offence of criminal conspiracy is
an exception to the general law, where intent
alone does not constitute crime. It is the
intention to commit a crime and join hands
with persons having the same intention.
iii. Conspiracy is hatched in private or
in secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a
conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, the
existence of the conspiracy and its objects
have to be inferred from the circumstances
and the conduct of the accused.
iv. Where in pursuance of the
agreement, the conspirators commit offences
individually or adopt illegal means to do a
legal act that has a nexus to the object of the
conspiracy, all of them will be liable for such
offences even if some of them have not
actively participated in the commission of
those offences.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court further emphasised
that the essential ingredient of criminal conspiracy is an
agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act
or to do a lawful act by illegal means. The agreement may be
established through direct evidence or inferred from the acts and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50906 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
13/17
conduct of the parties.
33. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of
the present case, it appears from the complaint petition that the
complainant/opposite party No. 2, namely, Ruby Devi, alleged
that, after her marriage with Madhava Nand Dhokari in the year
1999, she was subjected to demands for money and harassment
by the accused persons. It is further alleged that, on 13.05.2008,
the accused persons assaulted her, snatched her ornaments and
attempted to kill her by sprinkling kerosene oil. The petitioners,
on the other hand, have asserted that the dispute essentially
arose out of a family partition and that the partition dispute had
already been settled through a compromise before the
Permanent Lok Adalat on 13.12.2007. They have also contended
that the complaint was instituted with a view to exerting
pressure upon the family members in connection with the said
dispute.
34. The principles laid down in the case of Nalini
(supra) make it clear that the mere existence of a common
intention or the presence of several accused persons in a dispute
does not, by itself, establish the offence of criminal conspiracy.
There must be material indicating an agreement or meeting of
minds between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50906 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
14/17
to achieve a lawful object by illegal means. Although such an
agreement need not invariably be established by direct evidence,
its existence must be reasonably inferable from the allegations
and surrounding circumstances. In the present case, the
allegations concerning matrimonial discord, demand for money,
assault and harassment must be examined to determine whether
they disclose a concerted agreement among the petitioners to
commit an illegal act, or merely attribute separate acts of
alleged harassment to different members of the family. The
settlement of the partition dispute, by itself, did not establish
the existence of a criminal conspiracy.
35. Thus, the principles laid down in the case of
Nalini (supra) if applies to the case at hand, evince indisputably
that no ingredient of Section 120-B of the I.P.C. is attracted in
the case at hand.
36. The jurisdiction vested in this Court under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is extraordinary in nature and is
required to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. At
the same time, the said jurisdiction is intended to prevent abuse
of the process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice.
37. It is equally well settled that while considering
an application for quashing, the High Court ordinarily does not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50906 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
15/17
undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence. However,
where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not
disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged, or
where continuation of the proceeding would amount to abuse of
the process of law, interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
is justified.
38. The continuation of a criminal proceeding for
years in such circumstances would serve no useful purpose
where the foundational allegations themselves do not disclose
the requisite ingredients of the offences against the individual
accused.
39. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is not intended to stifle
legitimate prosecution. At the same time, the Court cannot
remain a silent spectator where continuation of criminal
proceedings would result in unnecessary harassment of persons
against whom the complaint does not disclose the requisite
ingredients of the offences.
40. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Kahkashan Kausar ( supra ), absence of specific allegations and
individual roles against the relatives of the husband is a relevant
consideration for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50906 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
16/17
the Cr.P.C.
41. Having considered the allegations in the
complaint in their entirety, this Court finds that the present case
falls within the category where interference is warranted to
prevent abuse of the process of law.
42. Upon consideration of the entire factual and
legal conspectus, this Court is of the considered view that the
continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners
would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of
the process of the Court.
43. The impugned order dated 02.09.2008 passed
by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Gaya in Complaint
Case No. 705 of 2008, therefore, cannot be sustained and,
hence, the same is fit to be quashed.
44. Ex consequenti , the order dated 02.09.2008
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Gaya in
Complaint Case No. 705 of 2008 whereby cognizance of
offences taken under Sections 498-A and 120-B of the I.P.C., is,
hereby, quashed and set aside with respect to the petitioners and
all the consequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom are
also quashed and set aside, qua the petitioners.
45. Accordingly, this application stands allowed in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50906 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
17/17
the aforesaid terms.
46. All pending interlocutory application(s), if any,
shall also stand disposed of.
(Rana Vikram Singh, J)
saurabh.kr/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 28.07.2026
Uploading Date 16.10.2026
Transmission Date 16.10.2026