VIMLA DEVI AND ORS. vs THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14356 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2016 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Nalanda
======================================================
1. Vimla Devi Wife of Late Ravindra Prasad Verma resident of at 254 Hari
Nagar, Opposite B.R.C. Gate Udhana P.S.-Udhana, District-Surat Code
394210,Gujrat.
2. Anita Kumari Daughter of Late Ravindra Prasad Verma resident of at 254
Hari Nagar, Opposite B.R.C. Gate Udhana P.S.-Udhana, District-Surat Code
394210,Gujrat.
3. Pankaj Verma @ Pankaj Kumar @ Pintu Son of Late Ravindra Pd. Verma
resident of at 254 Hari Nagar, Opposite B.R.C. Gate Udhana P.S.-Udhana,
District-Surat Code 394210,Gujrat.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kumari Shoba Daughter of Ram Pravesh Pd. resident of Mohalla-
Ramchandrapur (Teacher's Colony) Biharsharif Police Station Laheri
District-Nalanda.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rabindra Prasad Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-09-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present quashing petition has been preferred to
quash the order dated 27.10.2016 passed in Mahila P.S. Case No.
3/2016, where learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Biharsharif (Nalanda) took cognizance for the offence punishable
under Sections 498-A, 379, 323 and 34 of the IPC against the
petitioners.
3. Matter is of year 2016.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the
informant/Opposite Party No. 2 submitted a written complaint before

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14356 of 2019 dt.01-09-2026
2/7
the Officer-in-Charge, Mahila Police Station, Biharsharif, Nalanda,
on 10.01.2016, alleging that she was married to Rajesh Verma in
June 2014 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. At the time of
marriage, her father allegedly gave 6 lakhs in cash, ornaments ₹
worth 2 lakhs, clothes, utensils and other articles valued at about ₹
₹ 10 lakhs. It is further alleged that after the marriage, she went to
Barh (Patna) with her nandoshi and, after two or three days,
accompanied her husband to Surat, Gujarat. Thereafter, the accused
persons allegedly assaulted her, demanded an additional dowry of 5 ₹
lakhs, snatched her belongings, and forcibly ousted her from the
matrimonial house at about 12:00 midnight. It is further alleged that
the accused persons threatened to kill her, if the said demand for
dowry was not fulfilled.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that from the perusal of complaint, no prima facie case is
made out against petitioners for the reasons that petitioner no(s). 1, 2
& 3 are mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the
complainant. It is submitted that petitioners are living separately and
having no connection with their daily and domestic affairs. It is
submitted that their implication appears only out of being close
relative with ulterior and oblique motive, suggesting harassing
attitude. It is a classical case of malicious prosecution and misuse of
provisions of Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. While concluding
the argument, it is submitted that even from the perusal of complaint

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14356 of 2019 dt.01-09-2026
3/7
petition, the allegation qua petitioners is appearing very much
general and omnibus.
6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied
upon the legal report of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as available
through Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1083].
7. Learned APP appearing for the State while opposing
the application submitted that petitioners being in-laws played active
role towards alleged mental and physical cruelty to O.P. No. 2, by
raising demand of dowry.
8. It would be apposite to reproduce relevant Paragraph
Nos. 12, 13, 14 ,15, 16 & 17 of Abhishek Case (supra) , which read
as:-
12. The contours of the power to quash criminal
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are well defined. In
V. Ravi Kumar v. State represented by Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu [(2019) 14 SCC
568], this Court affirmed that where an accused seeks
quashing of the FIR, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of
the High Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High
Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the
correctness of the allegations in the complaint. In
Neeharika Infrastructure (P). Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
[Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021, decided on
13.04.2021], a 3-Judge Bench of this Court elaborately
considered the scope and extent of the power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. It was observed that the power of quashing
should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in
the rarest of rare cases, such standard not being confused
with the norm formulated in the context of the death
penalty. It was further observed that while examining the
FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court
cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made therein,
but if the Court thinks fit, regard being had to the
parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14356 of 2019 dt.01-09-2026
4/7
law, and more particularly, the parameters laid down by this
Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866)
and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC
335], the Court would have jurisdiction to quash the
FIR/complaint.
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 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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14356 of 2019 dt.01-09-2026
5/7
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 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.
17. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court had set out, by way of
illustration, the broad categories of cases in which the
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be
exercised. Para 102 of the decision reads as follows:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it
may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14356 of 2019 dt.01-09-2026
6/7
of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first informant report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which
no prudent persons can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.”
9. In view of aforesaid legal and factual submissions
petitioners who are mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law
appears living separately, having no connection with daily and
domestic affairs of O.P. No.2 and her husband, where allegation of
cruelty is also appearing very much general and omnibus against

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14356 of 2019 dt.01-09-2026
7/7
them.
10. In view of aforesaid factual background and by
taking guiding note of Abhishek case (supra) , impugned order of
taking cognizance dated 27.10.2026 along with all its consequential
proceedings, qua , all above named petitioners arising thereof as
passed in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 03/2016 pending
before learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif,
Nalanda is hereby quashed and set aside.
11. Hence, this application stands allowed.
12. TCR (Trial Court Records), if any, be returned to
learned trial court alongwith the copy of this judgment.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
S.Tripathi/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 01.09.2026
Transmission Date 01.09.2026