GANGA DEVI vs THE STATE OF BIHAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54803 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2020 Thana- NASRIGANJ District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. GANGA DEVI W/O SRI LAXMAN PRASAD @ LAXMAN THAKUR @
LAKSHMAN SHARMA PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-
AMIYAWAR, PS. NASRIGANJ, DIST. ROHTAS AT PRESENT
RESIDENT OF ROAD NO. 3, POSTAL PARK, NEAR DURGA MANDIR,
PS. JAKKANPUR, DIST. PATNA
2. ANUJ KUMAR SHARMA @ ANUJ SHARMA @ ANUJ KUMAR S/O
RAM KAILASH THAKUR PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-
BARONV, BARAWAN, PS. NOKHA, DIST. ROHTAS AT PRESENT
VILLAGE- GAURAKSHANI, PS. SASARAM NAGAR, DIST. ROHTAS
3. BAIJANTI DEVI @ SUNITA DEVI W/O SRI ANUJ KUMAR SHARMA
@ ANUJ SHARMA @ ANUJ KUMAR PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE- BARONV, BARAWAN, PS. NOKHA, DIST. ROHTAS AT
PRESENT VILLAGE- GAURAKSHANI, PS. SASARAM NAGAR, DIST.
ROHTAS
4. ASHA DEVI @ ASHA KUMARI W/O SRI SUSHIL KUMAR @ SUSHIL
SHARMA R/O VILLAGE- AYER, PS. AYER, DIST. BHOJPUR
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR ADVOCATE GENERAL BIHAR
2. POOJA SHARMA W/O SRI GUDDU SHARMA @ SUBHASH PRASAD
R/O VILLAGE- AMIYAWAR, PS. NASRIGANJ, DIST. ROHTAS
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manish Kumar No 13, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-05-2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
learned counsel for the opposite parties.
2. The instant application has been filed under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for quashing
the order taking cognizance dated 02.01.2021 passed in Nasriganj

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54803 of 2023 dt.08-05-2026
2/7
P.S. Case No. 95 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No. 794 of
2020/T.R. No. 3700 of 2020, by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-III, Bikramganj, Rohtas, whereby cognizance
was taken for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354A,
498A, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The prosecution case, as set out in the First
Information Report lodged by opposite party No. 2, Pooja Sharma,
on 14.06.2020, is as follows. The complainant stated that on that
date, at around 6:00 p.m., her husband Guddu Sharma (accused,
not a petitioner herein), her mother-in-law Ganga Devi (petitioner
No. 1), and her two nanads, namely Baijanti Devi (petitioner No.
3) and Asha Devi (petitioner No. 4), subjected her to physical
assault at their residence at village Amiyawar, Thana Nasriganj,
District Rohtas, with the demand that she bring Rs. 5,00,000/- as
dowry from her parental home. She further alleged that her nandoi,
Anuj Kumar Sharma (petitioner No. 2), along with his wife
Baijanti Devi, would regularly come to the village, instigate the in-
laws against her, and participate in the demand for dowry,
accompanying the threat that she would not be permitted to remain
in the matrimonial home until the demanded sum was brought. An
additional and serious allegation was made against petitioner No. 2

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54803 of 2023 dt.08-05-2026
3/7
alone, namely that he would compel her to have physical relations
with him under threat of harm.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner No. 1 is the mother-in-law of the complainant, petitioner
No. 2 is her nandoi, and petitioners No. 3 and 4 are her married
sisters-in-law (nanad). He submits that the allegations against all
four petitioners are vague, general, and omnibus in character,
without any specification of individual acts attributed to each of
them. He further submits that the dispute is essentially one
between the complainant and her husband, and that the in-laws and
relatives appear to have been roped in to implicate the entire
family. Learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2023
SCC OnLine SC 1083], and submits that petitioners No. 2 and 3
have been implicated solely by reason of their relationship with the
husband of opposite party 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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54803 of 2023 dt.08-05-2026
4/7
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 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 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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54803 of 2023 dt.08-05-2026
5/7
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 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.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has
vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the order taking
cognizance dated 02.01.2021.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54803 of 2023 dt.08-05-2026
6/7
6. Having heard the parties and having perused the FIR
as well as the order taking cognizance, this Court is of the
considered view that the quashing application deserves to be
allowed in respect of all four petitioners. The legal position is now
well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhishek v. State of
Madhya Pradesh (supra) that where the allegations in the FIR
against relatives of the husband are general, omnibus, and bereft of
specific particulars attributing individual acts to each accused,
allowing the prosecution to proceed would amount to an abuse of
the process of law.
7. Applying those principles to the present case, this
Court finds that the allegations in the FIR against petitioner No. 1
(mother-in-law), petitioner No. 3 (nanad), and petitioner No. 4
(nanad) are couched in entirely general terms. The FIR does not
set out any specific act or incident attributable to any of them
individually. They appear to have been named as part of a
collective family demand for dowry, without anything to
distinguish their individual roles. As regards petitioner No. 2
(nandoi), while a serious individual allegation of a sexual nature
has been made against him in the FIR, the allegation is wholly
lacking in particulars of time, place, or specific incident, rendering
it too vague to sustain prosecution at this stage. Permitting

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54803 of 2023 dt.08-05-2026
7/7
proceedings to continue against the petitioners in these
circumstances would result in undue harassment and would
amount to an abuse of the process of law, which this Court must
arrest in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
8. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated
02.01.2021 passed in Nasriganj P.S. Case No. 95 of 2020
corresponding to G.R. No. 794 of 2020/T.R. No. 3700 of 2020, by
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Bikramganj,
Rohtas, is hereby quashed so far as the petitioners are concerned.
It is clarified that this order shall have no bearing on the
proceedings against the husband of opposite party No. 2, or any
other accused not before this Court.
(Ansul, J)
amitkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date
Transmission Date