Patna High Court
Binod Kumar @ Binod Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 17 June, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24209 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Purnia
======================================================
1. Binod Kumar @ Binod Kumar Singh Son of Late Bishnu Deo Singh R/o
Near Flour Mill, Gayatri Nagar, P.S.- Sadar Thana, Purnia, Dist.- Purnia,
Bihar-854301
2. Veena Devi Wife of Binod Kumar Singh Resident of Near Flour Mill,
Gayatri Nagar, P.S.- Sadar Thana, Purina, Dist.- Purnia, Bihar-854301
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Swati Kumari Daughter of Umesh Kumar Singh R/O Madhubani Police
Station-Madhubani, District-Purnia
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv
: Mr. Saurabh Bishwambhar, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Ms. Mallika Mazumdar, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 17-06-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present quashing petition has been
preferred to quash the order dated 01.10.2022 passed in
G.R. No. 2956 of 2019 by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Purnea by which prayer of discharge of petitioners
was rejected in connection with Purnea Mahila P.S. Case No.
32 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24209 of 2023 dt.17-06-2025
2/13
Sections 498 A & 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC)
and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, where charge-
sheet submitted under Sections 341, 323, 498 A & 34 of the
IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The case of prosecution in brief is that on
24.08.2019
, Swati Kumari daughter of Umesh Kumar Singh,
filed a written complaint stating that she was married to
Vishal Kumar (son of Binod Kumar) two years ago, and have
a child together. Both husband and wife are doctors. Initially,
the relation between parties was co-ordial, but later on her in-
laws including her husband Vishal Kumar, mother-in-law
Veena Devi, father-in-law Binod Kumar and sister-in-law
Binita Kumari demanded land and Rs. 10 lakh. Upon her
refusal, they allegedly began harassing her, denying her food
and water, preventing her from attending her clinic and
started regularly assaulting her. She also reported that her in-
laws threatened to falsely implicate her father in serious
criminal cases.
4. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that both
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24209 of 2023 dt.17-06-2025
3/13
petitioners are in-laws facing general and omnibus allegation
qua demand of dowry. It is submitted that even allegation of
physical assault is appearing very much general and omnibus
against these petitioners and they appear primarily alleged
only being parents of husband of O.P. No. 2. It is pointed out
by Mr. Sinha that date of occurrence also not appears
specified from the face of FIR. It is submitted that Rs. 7 lakhs
advanced to petitioner no. 1 by the father of O.P. No. 2
admittedly for the business purpose as loan, which was duly
returned by petitioners prior to this marriage and, therefore,
allegation for demand of dowry appears apparently false on
its face. It is submitted that amount in issue was returned
through bank transaction, leaving no doubt.
5. It is also submitted by Mr. Sinha that injury
report made available through supplementary affidavit
suggest only bodily pain etc., contrary to the allegations as
raised by O.P. No. 2 as she was brutally beaten by petitioner’s
son and also by petitioners.
6. While concluding his argument, it is pointed
out that from the allegation as set out through FIR, no prima-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24209 of 2023 dt.17-06-2025
4/13
facie cognizable offence appears to be made out against
petitioners, where implication only appears being parents of
the husband of O.P. No. 2 and, therefore, the order rejecting
discharge petition under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. by learned
Trial Court is fit to be quashed and set aside as there is no
ground to call petitioners for joining the criminal trial. In
support of the submissions learned counsel relied upon the
legal reports of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through
State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and
Others, 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 &
Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1083.
7. Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel
for O.P. No. 2 submitted that FIR in issue categorically
disclosing that the petitioners raised demand of dowry for
cash of Rs. 10 lakhs and they were involved in physical
assault, however she fairly conceded that date of occurrence
is not specified in the FIR.
8. It would also be apposite to reproduce the
paragraph no. 102 of the Bhajan Lal Case (supra) which
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24209 of 2023 dt.17-06-2025
5/13
reads as under:
“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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24209 of 2023 dt.17-06-2025
6/13cognizable 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 nay 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24209 of 2023 dt.17-06-2025
7/13provision 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. It would also be apposite to reproduce the
paragraph no(s). 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of Abhishek Case
(supra) which reads as under:
“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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24209 of 2023 dt.17-06-2025
8/13v. 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24209 of 2023 dt.17-06-2025
9/13members 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24209 of 2023 dt.17-06-2025
10/13case, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24209 of 2023 dt.17-06-2025
11/13such 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24209 of 2023 dt.17-06-2025
12/13under 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.
10. In view of aforesaid factual and legal
discussions and by taking note of fact as allegation raised
against petitioners, who are in-laws appears very much
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24209 of 2023 dt.17-06-2025
13/13
general and omnibus without specifying even the date of the
occurrence, where injury report is also not supporting the
allegation as raised by O.P. No. 2. Accordingly, by taking note
of legal ratio as available through Abhishek Case (supra),
impugned order dated 01.10.2022 as passed by learned
SDJM, Purnea in G.R. No. 2956 of 2019 in connection with
Purnea Mahila P.S. Case No. 32 of 2019 as discussed
aforesaid is hereby quashed and set aside.
11. Hence, this application stands allowed.
12. TCR (Trial Court Records), if any, be returned to
the learned Trial Court alongwith the copy of this judgment.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
S.Tripathi/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 18.06.2025 Transmission Date 18.06.2025