Facts
The informant, married to Sanjay Prasad in 1995, alleged that her husband and his family members—including petitioner no. 1, her mother-in-law, petitioner no. 2, her brother-in-law, and petitioner no. 3, her sister-in-law—subjected her to physical and mental cruelty and demanded ₹5,00,000 from her father for business purposes.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3She further alleged that on 4 February 2012, the accused assaulted her, pulled her hair, pushed her, tore her clothes, threatened her, and directed her to leave Patna.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3After allegedly receiving no action on her written complaint to the police, the informant initiated the criminal proceeding.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3The petitioners sought quashing of the order dated 15 November 2016 by which the Judicial Magistrate rejected their discharge application under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. in Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 157 of 2012.
Source reference: p. 1, para. 2Issues
Whether the criminal proceeding against the petitioners, who were relatives of the husband, was liable to be quashed on the ground that the allegations against them were general and omnibus and did not attribute specific overt acts.
Source reference: p. 2–4, paras. 4–5, 8Whether the Magistrate’s order dated 15 November 2016 rejecting the petitioners’ application for discharge under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. required interference.
Source reference: p. 1, para. 2; p. 5, para. 8Law Applied
The Court considered the scope of discharge under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. and the principle that criminal proceedings should not continue against relatives of the husband where allegations, particularly in proceedings involving Section 498-A IPC, are merely general and omnibus and lack specific allegations of individual involvement.
Source reference: p. 3–4, para. 5; p. 5, para. 8The Court relied principally on Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 667, and Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 16 SCC 666, which caution against continuation of proceedings based on vague allegations against the husband’s relatives.
Source reference: p. 3–4, para. 5; p. 5, para. 8The petitioners also relied on Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741, Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., (2018) 10 SCC 472, and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599.
Source reference: p. 3–4, para. 5; p. 5, para. 8Reasoning
The Court examined the nature of the allegations against the three petitioners and found them to be general and omnibus.
Source reference: p. 2–4, paras. 4–5Although the prosecution alleged cruelty and assault by the husband’s family, the material relied upon did not disclose sufficiently specific individual acts warranting continuation of the proceedings against these petitioners.
Source reference: p. 2–4, paras. 4–5Applying the principles in Preeti Gupta and Abhishek, the Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings against relatives on the basis of such unspecific allegations would be an abuse of the process of law.
Source reference: p. 2–4, paras. 4–5; p. 5, para. 8Consequently, the Magistrate’s refusal to discharge the petitioners could not be sustained.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 8Holding
The High Court allowed the application and quashed the order dated 15 November 2016 rejecting the petitioners’ discharge application.
The criminal proceeding in Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 157 of 2012 was quashed only insofar as it related to Rajmani Devi, Arun Kumar @ Munni, and Kiran Devi.
Source reference: p. 5, paras. 8–9The proceedings against the other co-accused, including Sanjay Prasad, were permitted to continue.
Source reference: p. 5, paras. 8–9Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731
Original Court PDF
Rajmani Devi and OrsvsState Of Bihar and Anr
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
