SURYADEV SINGH @ SURAY DEO SINGH vs The State of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60653 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2018 Thana- NAUTAN District- Siwan
======================================================
1. SURYADEV SINGH @ SURAY DEO SINGH S/o Anandi Singh Resident of
village- Ukhai, Pachhim Tola, P.S.- Siwan Muffasil, District- Siwan, Bihar
2. SANTOSH SINGH @ SANTOSH KUMAR @ SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH
S/o Anandi Singh Resident of village- Ukhai, Pachhim Tola, P.S.- Siwan
Muffasil, District- Siwan, Bihar
3. MUNNA SINGH MUNNA KUMAR SINGH S/o Anandi Singh Resident of
village- Ukhai, Pachhim Tola, P.S.- Siwan Muffasil, District- Siwan, Bihar
4. CHANDRABHUSHAN SINGH CHANDRABHUSHAN KUMAR S/o Anandi
SIngh Resident of village- Ukhai, Pachhim Tola, P.S.- Siwan Muffasil, District-
Siwan, Bihar
5. MAINSH SINGH @ GOLU @ MANISH KUMAR S/o Suryadev Singh @
Suray Deo Singh Resident of village- Ukhai, Pachhim Tola, P.S.- Siwan
Muffasil, District- Siwan, Bihar
6. RINKU DEVI W/o Suryadev Singh @ Suray Deo Singh Resident of village-
Ukhai, Pachhim Tola, P.S.- Siwan Muffasil, District- Siwan, Bihar
7. RIMA DEVI W/o Santosh Singh @ Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Kumar Singh
Resident of village- Ukhai, Pachhim Tola, P.S.- Siwan Muffasil, District- Siwan,
Bihar
8. SHILPA KUMARI D/o Suryadev Singh @ Suray Deo Singh Resident of
village- Ukhai, Pachhim Tola, P.S.- Siwan Muffasil, District- Siwan, Bihar
9. NIDHI KUMARI D/o Suryadev Singh @ Suray Deo Singh Resident of village-
Ukhai, Pachhim Tola, P.S.- Siwan Muffasil, District- Siwan, Bihar Under
guardianship of her natural guardian- Niraj Kumar (Maternal Uncle- Mama)
aged about 35 years, Gender- Male, Son of Late Mukhtar Singh, Resident of
Village- Pakhrera, P.S.- Pachrukhi, District- Siwan, Bihar
10. SONAM KUMARI D/o Suryadev Singh @ Suray Deo Singh Resident of
village- Ukhai, Pachhim Tola, P.S.- Siwan Muffasil, District- Siwan, Bihar
Under guardianship of her natural guardian- Niraj Kumar (Maternal Uncle-
Mama) aged about 35 years, Gender- Male, Son of Late Mukhtar Singh,
Resident of Village- Pakhrera, P.S.- Pachrukhi, District- Siwan, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. SEEMA DEVI W/o Ravish Kumar D/o Virendra Singh Presently residing at
village- Narayanpur, P.S.- Nautan, District- Siwan, Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Indrajeet Bhushan, Advocate
: Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
: Ms. Sarwat Rafi, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Syed Mojibur Rahman, APP
======================================================
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60653 of 2022 dt.11-05-2026
2/6
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 11-05-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
learned APP for the State.
2. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the
petitioners for quashing the order dated 13.07.2022 passed by
learned S.D.J.M., Siwan in connection with Nautan P.S. Case No.
05 of 2018; G.R. No. 136 of 2018, whereby and where under the
learned S.D.J.M., Siwan has been pleased to take cognizance
against the above named petitioners under Sections 498(A), 341,
323, 504/34 of I.P.C. and under Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act.
3. The petitioner No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the brothers of the
husband of O.P. No. 2, Petitioner No. 5 is the nephew of the
husband of O.P. No. 2, Petitioners No. 6 and 7 are the Bhavis
(sister-in-law) of the husband of O.P. No. 2 and Petitioners No. 8,
9 and 10 are nieces of the husband of O.P. No. 2.
4. The allegation is that the marriage of the informant
was solemnized with one Rabish Kumar Singh on 05.06.2012.
After two months demand of dowry was made.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence as alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60653 of 2022 dt.11-05-2026
3/6
in the FIR. He further submits that general and omnibus
allegations have been levelled against all the petitioners who are
other than the husband of demand of dowry. Simple perusal of the
FIR would show that the allegation is vague, general and omnibus
to the core without any specific date, instance or mode and manner
of torture or demand. He further relies upon the observation given
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhishek vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in [2023 SCC Online SC 1083] and submitted
that the petitioner no. 2 and 3 were implicated only only of their
relations with husband of O.P. No. 2.
“ (13) Instances of a husband's family
members filing a petition to quash criminal
proceedings launched against them by his wife in
the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a
rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty
abound on this score. We may now take note of some
decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in
Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar
[(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had occasion to deal
with a similar situation where the High Court had
refused to quash a FIR registered for various
offences, including Section 498A IPC. Noting that
the foremost issue that required determination was
whether allegations made against the in-laws were
general omnibus allegations which would be liable
to be quashed, this Court referred to earlier
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60653 of 2022 dt.11-05-2026
4/6
decisions wherein concern was expressed over the
misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased
tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in
matrimonial disputes. This Court observed that false
Implications by way of general omnibus allegations
made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left
unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of
law. On the facts of that case, it was found that no
specific allegations were made against the in-laws
by the wife and it was held that allowing their
prosecution in the absence of clear allegations
against the in-laws would result in an abuse of the
process of law. It was also noted that a criminal
trial, leading to an eventual acquittal, would inflict
severe scars upon the accused and such an exercise
ought to be discouraged.
14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand
[(2010) 7 SCC 667], this Court noted that the
tendency to implicate the husband and all his
immediate relations is also not uncommon in
complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It was
observed that 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,
as allegations of harassment by husband's close
relations, who were living in different cities and
never visited or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided, would add an entirely different
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60653 of 2022 dt.11-05-2026
5/6
complexion and such allegations would have to be
scrutinised with great care and circumspection.
15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti
[(2009) 10 SCC 184), this Court observed that the
mere mention of statutory provisions and the
language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is not the
'be all and end all of the matter, as what is required
to be brought to the notice of the Court is the
particulars of the offence committed by each and
every accused and the role played by each and every
accused in the commission of that offence. These
observations were made in the context of a
matrimonial dispute involving Section 498A IPC.
16. Of more recent origin is the decision
of this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023, decided on
08.08.2023) on the legal principles applicable
apropos Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therein, it was
observed that when an accused comes before the
High Court, invoking either the inherent power
under Section 482 Cr. P.C. or the 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 of wreaking vengeance, then in
such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to
look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.
It was further observed that it will not be enough for
the Court to look into the averments made in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60653 of 2022 dt.11-05-2026
6/6
FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the necessary Ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed or not as, 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, to try and read between the lines.
6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties have
vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the order of
cognizance dated 13.07.2022.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and
in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in case of Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Supra), the
instant quashing application stands allowed
8. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated
13.07.2022 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Siwan in connection with
Nautan P.S. Case No. 05 of 2018; G.R. No. 136 of 2018 is hereby
quashed, so far as the petitioners are concerned.
(Ansul, J)
amitkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 19.05.2026
Transmission Date 19.05.2026