SHYAMA NAND MANDAL and ORS vs State Of Bihar and Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47019 of 2016
CNR No. BRHC010383102016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2068 Year-2015 Thana- KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Katihar
======================================================
1. Shyama Nand Mandal, son of Punji Lal Mandal
2. Sujata Kumari, wife of Shayam Nandan Mandal
Both resident of Sipahi Tola, P.S. K. Hat, District- Purnea.
3. Gopal Krishna Paramhans @ Gopal Krishna Paramhans, son of Late Rudra
Nand Mandal Resident of Shiv Puri, P.S. Araria, Sadar, District- Araria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sima Kumari, daughter of Ram Narayan Mandal, wife of Punit Raman,
resident of Village- Jonia, P.S.- Pranpur, District Katihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Indrajeet Kumar, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Girish Chandra Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binod Kumar No. 3, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 13-10-2026
The present application has been filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referref to as “ Cr.P.C. ”), seeking quashing of the order dated
31.08.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Katihar in
Criminal Revision No. 28 of 2016, whereby the criminal
revision preferred by the petitioners was dismissed and the order
dated 11.03.2016 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Katihar, in complaint case bearing C.A. Case No.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47019 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
2/14
2068 of 2015, taking cognizance of the offences punishable
under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
referred to as “ the I.P.C. ”) and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “ the D.P. Act ”)
was affirmed.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, as emerging from the
complaint petition, is that complainant/O.P. No. 2, namely, Sima
Kumari, daughter of Ram Narayan Mandal and wife of Punit
Raman, filed complaint case bearing C.A. Case No. 2068 of
2015 on 30.07.2015 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Katihar alleging therein, that her marriage with
Punit Raman, son of petitioner No. 1, Shyama Nand Mandal,
was solemnized on 24.11.2013 in accordance with Hindu
religious rites and customs.
It is alleged that after her marriage, complainant/O.P.
No. 2 went to her matrimonial home and resided there for about
ten days, during which she led her conjugal life. Thereafter, she
returned to her parental home. Upon her subsequent return to
the matrimonial home, the petitioners and other members of her
matrimonial family allegedly started subjecting her to cruelty
and harassment on account of demand for dowry, including a
demand for a car.
Complainant/O.P. No. 2 thereafter, accompanied her

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47019 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
3/14
husband to Sitamarhi, where her husband was posted in a bank.
During her stay there, she was allegedly subjected to cruelty and
ill-treatment at the hands of her husband and the other accused
persons.
The complaint further alleges that on the occasion of
Holi , complainant/O.P. No. 2 and her husband returned to
Purnea, where the accused persons allegedly attempted to kill
her during the night. It is stated that on account of the aforesaid
conduct and continuing harassment, the complainant/O.P. No. 2
was ultimately driven out of her matrimonial home on
15.03.2014, whereafter, she returned to her parental home. The
family members of the complainant/O.P. No. 2 made efforts to
resolve the matrimonial dispute and bring about reconciliation
between the parties but, such efforts did not yield any result. On
12.07.2015, the accused persons came to her parental home
where, they allegedly abused and assaulted her and misbehaved
with her family members.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the
complainant/O.P. No. 2 instituted the complaint case bearing
C.A. Case No. 2068 of 2015 on 30.07.2015, alleging
commission of offences under Sections 498(A) of the I.P.C. and
Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961 against the petitioners and the
other accused persons whereafter solemn affirmation of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47019 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
4/14
complainant and statement of enquiry witnesses were recorded
and upon consideration of averments made in the complaint
petition and the materials available on record, the Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar passed the order dated
11.03.2016, taking cognizance of the offences under Section
498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act against the petitioners.
4. Being aggrieved by the order taking cognizance,
the petitioners preferred Criminal Revision No. 28 of 2016
before the learned Sessions Judge, Katihar. However, by the
order dated 31.08.2016, the learned Revisional Court dismissed
the revision petition and affirmed the order taking cognizance,
giving rise to the present application.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that the impugned orders passed by the
learned Courts below are unsustainable in the facts and
circumstances of the case. It is contended that the petitioners
have been falsely implicated in the present criminal proceeding
arising out of a matrimonial dispute between complainant/O.P.
No. 2 and her husband.
6. It is contended that petitioners are the father-in-law
(petitioner no. 1), the mother-in-law (petitioner no. 2) and the
maternal uncle-in-law (petitioner no. 3) of complainant/O.P. No.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47019 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
5/14
2 respectively. The allegations levelled against the petitioners
are general and omnibus in nature, without any specific overt
act attributable to each of them. The complaint does not disclose
the necessary particulars of any specific incident of cruelty or
unlawful demand committed by the petitioners so as to justify
their prosecution.
7. The learned counsel submits that petitioner No. 3 is
a senior administrative officer posted at the Patna Secretariat
and has no concern with the alleged matrimonial dispute. It is
contended that his implication in the present case is merely on
account of his relationship with the husband and no injury report
has been brought on record in support of the allegation of
assault.
8. It is further contended that the matrimonial dispute
between complainant/O.P. No. 2 and her husband had already
resulted in proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 instituted by the husband on 08.12.2014 vide
Matrimonial Case No. 346 of 2014 i.e. much prior to the filing
of the present complaint. The subsequent institution of the
complaint on 30.07.2015, according to the petitioners, is in fact
a retaliatory measure which has been resorted to with an ulterior
motive to harass the petitioners and the other members of the
family.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47019 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
6/14
9. The learned counsel, accordingly, submits that even
if the allegations made in the complaint petition are taken at
their face value, the essential ingredients of the offences alleged,
are not made out against the petitioners. The continuation of the
criminal proceeding would, therefore, amount to an abuse of the
process of the Court, and thus the impugned orders are fit to be
set aside being an outcome of non-application of judicial mind.
10. Mr. Girish Chandra Jha, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of complainant/O.P. No. 2 submits that the
complaint petition discloses specific allegations relating to
harassment and cruelty meted out to complainant/O.P. No. 2 in
her matrimonial home. It is contended that complainant/O.P. No.
2 has categorically alleged demand for dowry, including a
demand for a car, and has also narrated the circumstances in
which she was allegedly subjected to ill-treatment and
ultimately driven out of her matrimonial home.
11. He urges that the allegations in the complaint are
required to be considered as a whole and cannot be examined in
isolation. According to the learned counsel, complainant/O.P.
No. 2 has also alleged an occurrence at her parental home on
12.07.2015, when the accused persons allegedly abused and
assaulted her.
12. Accordingly he submits that the defence of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47019 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
7/14
petitioners, including their denial of the allegations and the
existence of matrimonial proceedings between complainant/O.P.
No. 2 and her husband, cannot be accepted as conclusive at the
stage of quashing the criminal proceeding. It is, therefore,
contended that the impugned orders do not call for interference
in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for quashing
and submits that the complaint petition contains allegations of
cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for dowry
against the petitioners and the other accused persons.
14. It is thus submitted that the learned Magistrate,
upon consideration of the materials available on record, has
taken cognizance of the offence alleged, and the learned
Revisional Court has affirmed the said order. It is, therefore,
contended that the allegations are required to be examined in
accordance with law and that the present application is fit to be
dismissed.
15. Heard rival submissions of the learned counsels
for the parties and perused the records.
16. At this stage, it would be germane to quote section
498(A) of the I.P.C. for appreciation of the case, at hand :-
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty.—

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47019 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
8/14
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.”

17. It is evident from the averments made in the
complaint application as well as from the records of the case
that there appears to be temperamental differences between the
O.P. No. 2 and her husband. On an account of incompatibility,
the O.P. No. 2 left the matrimonial home in a huff, compelling
her husband to file an application for restitution of conjugal
rights filed in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Purnea on 08.12.2014 vide Matrimonial Case No. 346 of
2014 and thereafter, the complaint case bearing C.A. Case No.
2068 of 2015 was instituted on 30.07.2015.
18. Petitioners herein are father-in-law (petitioner no. 1),
mother-in-law (petitioner no. 2) and maternal uncle-in-law
(petitioner no. 3) of the O.P. No. 2 and they appears to have

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47019 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
9/14
been roped-in the case at hand on account of them having
relationship with the husband as aforesaid. The allegations made
against the petitioners, who are relatives of the husband, has to
be examined individually and with objectivity in order to find
out whether the case under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal
Code is made out against them or not.
19. On bare perusal of the averments made in the
complaint petition as well as from the statements recorded in
course of enquiry, 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/O.P. No. 2
which could be termed to be cruelty.
20. The complaint contains allegations merely
concerning demand of dowry and 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.
21. 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.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47019 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
10/14
22. A matrimonial dispute between husband and wife
cannot, by itself, furnish a basis for mechanically implicating
every relative of the husband. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. v. 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.”
23. 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/O.P. 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
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.”
24. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47019 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
11/14
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 satisfying the ingredients of offences
under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.
25. Since the petitioners are in-laws of the
complainant/O.P. No. 2, the mere allegation that the accused
persons subjected her to cruelty or demanded dowry without
sufficiently identifying the specific role played by each of the
accused cannot, by itself, could justify the initiation and
continuation of a criminal prosecution against all such relatives
and family members of the husband.
26. The allegation regarding demand of car undoubtedly
finds mention in the complaint, however, the materials do not
disclose sufficient particulars regarding the specific
participation of each of the petitioners in making such demand
so as to attract the offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act.
27. The allegations under the D.P. Act substantially arise
from the same matrimonial allegations which form the
foundation of the prosecution under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C.
28. 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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47019 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
12/14
cause of justice.
29. This Court is conscious of the fact that 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, but 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.
30. It is equally well settled that while considering an
application for quashing, the High Court ordinarily does not
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.
31. 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 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.
32. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47019 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
13/14
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
the Cr.P.C.
33. Having considered the allegations in the complaint in
its entirety, this Court finds that the present case falls within the
category, where interference is warranted to prevent abuse of the
process of law.
34. 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.
35. Thus the impugned orders, dated 31.08.2016 passed
by learned Sessions Judge, Katihar in Criminal Revision No. 28
of 2016, and the order dated 11.03.2016, passed by the learned
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Katihar in complaint case bearing
C.A. Case No. 2068 of 2015, therefore, cannot be sustained and,
hence, the same are fit to be quashed.
36. Accordingly, the order dated 31.08.2016, passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Katihar in Criminal Revision No. 28
of 2016, whereby he dismissed the aforesaid revision case
thereby affirming the order taking cognizance as well as the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47019 of 2016 dt.13-10-2026
14/14
order dated 11.03.2016, passed by learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in complaint case bearing C.A.
Case No. 2068 of 2015, whereby cognizance has been taken
under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. and Sections 4 of the D.P.
Act are, hereby, quashed and set aside as well as all the criminal
proceedings emanating therefrom are also quashed and set aside
qua the petitioners.
37. Thus, this application stands allowed in the aforesaid
terms.
38. All pending interlocutory application(s), if any,
stands disposed of.


(Rana Vikram Singh, J)
Smriti/Supratim-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 27.07.2026
Uploading Date 16.10.2026
Transmission Date 16.10.2026