Rekha Mishra vs The State of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85396 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-160 Year-2020 Thana- KASIMBAZAR District- Munger
======================================================
1. Rekha Mishra Wife of Sanjeev Mishra Resident of Mohalla Kali Sthan V.D.
Mishra Road, Patna City, P.S. Chowk, District Patna.
2. Sanjeev Mishra, Son of Lakshman Ji Mishra @ Lakshman Mishra, Resident
of Mohalla Kali Sthan V.D. Mishra Road, Patna City, P.S. Chowk, District
Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar.
2. Kumari Arunima Wife of Arun Kumar Mishra and Daughter of Surendra
Chandra Pathk, Resident of Village Puraniganj, Jamalpur Road, P.s. Kashim
Bazar, P.O. Munger, P.s Munger, District Munger.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nikhil Kumar Agarwal, Advocate
Mr.Aditi Hansaria, Advocate
Mr.Keshav Bharadwaj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Chandra Sen Prasad Singh,APP
For the Informant : Mr.Rajesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 23-06-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application has been filed under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) read with
the corresponding saving provisions, seeking quashing of the
cognizance order dated 14.09.2020 passed by the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger in Kasim Bazar P.S. Case
No. 160 of 2020, whereby cognizance was taken under Sections
341, 323, 379, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85396 of 2023 dt.23-06-2026
2/5
and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against
the petitioners and others.
3. The petitioners are the nanad (sister-in-law) and
nandoi (husband of the sister-in-law) of the informant, Opposite
Party No. 2. Petitioner No. 1, Rekha Mishra, is a practicing
Advocate at the Civil Court, Patna City since 1990, and petitioner
No. 2, Sanjeev Mishra, is her husband. The records would show
that both petitioners have been residing at Mohalla Kali Sthan,
V.D. Mishra Road, Patna City, which admittedly is approximately
17 kilometres away from the matrimonial home of the informant.
It has come out in the petition, and is an admitted situation, that
the petitioners had not visited the matrimonial home of the
informant since as far back as 1998. They maintain an entirely
separate mess and household. The FIR itself records that after
certain family interventions, the nanad and nandoi left and were
residing on rent nearby, though it is stated they continued visiting.
The prosecution story, taken at its face value, thus concedes the
fact of separate living.
4. The informant's written report dated 01.05.2020,
which forms the basis of Kasim Bazar P.S. Case No. 160 of 2020
registered on 22.06.2020, alleges that after her marriage on
06.05.2007 with Arun Kumar Mishra, her in-laws, including the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85396 of 2023 dt.23-06-2026
3/5
petitioners herein, subjected her to torture and cruelty in various
ways. The allegations against the petitioners in the FIR and the
charge sheet are that the nanad and nandoi engaged in
womanising, that the nanad was like a call girl, and that they aided
and abetted in the general atmosphere of harassment. The husband
of the informant died on 27.04.2020, and the written report was
lodged a mere four days thereafter. The charge sheet bearing No.
177/2020 dated 31.07.2020 was submitted against eight accused
persons including the petitioners.
5. The records would show that the allegations against
petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are entirely general and omnibus in
character, bereft of any specific act attributed to either of them
with reference to date, time or circumstance. The nanad and
nandoi are sought to be roped in on the strength of bald, sweeping
and morally coloured assertions, such as the nanad being of
questionable character and the two of them engaging in
womanising, which do not constitute any ingredient of the
offences alleged and are plainly absurd. It is an admitted situation
that the petitioners have been residing separately, at Patna City,
approximately 17 kilometres from the matrimonial home, and had
not visited that home since 1998, a circumstance that appears from
the prosecution's own case. No specific demand of dowry, no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85396 of 2023 dt.23-06-2026
4/5
individual act of assault, no particular date of harassment is
attributed to the petitioners anywhere in the FIR or the charge
sheet. The informant was married in 2007 and the FIR was lodged
in 2020, thirteen years later, merely four days after her husband's
death, without any explanation for the silence during his lifetime.
The law on this aspect is well settled. In Abhishek vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in [(2023) INSC 779] , the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in a factually similar situation where the brother-
in-law of the informant was residing separately and no specific
role was attributed to him, quashed the proceedings, holding that
general and omnibus allegations, which do not spell out individual
culpability with particularity, cannot be permitted to drag accused
through the rigours of criminal trial. Sister of High Court in Cr.
Misc. No. 16948 of 2023 and Cr. Misc. No. 19092 of 2023, arising
from the very same FIR involving the remaining accused, has by a
considered judgment dated 05.02.2026 quashed the cognizance
order after noting that the allegations are general and omnibus, that
the FIR does not mention specific dates or time periods, that the
petitioners therein lived separately, and that the prosecution
appears to have been set in motion for extraneous reasons. The
situation of the present petitioners is, if anything, more remote,
they having not visited the matrimonial home for over two
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85396 of 2023 dt.23-06-2026
5/5
decades. Allowing the prosecution to continue in these
circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of this
Court.
6. In the result, this application is allowed. The
cognizance order dated 14.09.2020 passed by the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger in Kasim Bazar P.S. Case
No. 160 of 2020 and all proceedings arising therefrom stand
quashed insofar as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned.
7. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.
(Ansul, J)
abhishekkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 25.06.2026
Transmission Date 25.06.2026