Patna High Court
Abdul Rahman Ansari vs The State Of Bihar on 14 July, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37697 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-369 Year-2023 Thana- PIRBAHOR District- Patna
======================================================
1. Abdul Rahman Ansari, S/o Late Md. Abedin Ansari R/o J.P.S. Campus,
Village and P.O. and P.S.- Baliyarpur, Distt.- Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
2. Anisha Khatoon, W/o Alauddin Ansari, R/o Village-Islam Nagar, Post
Office- Kapali, P.S.- Chandil, Dobo Saraikela Kharsama, Distt.- Jamshedpur
(Jharkhand).
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sabiha Ahmad, D/o Ca. Dr. Ahmed Ansari, R/o C-4, Al-Nazeer Complex,
Dariyapur, Sabzibagh, Post Office- Bankipur, P.S- Pirbahore, Distt.- Patna.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Md. Shamimul Hoda, Advocate
For the State : Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate
Ms. Roona, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 14-07-2025
Heard Md. Shamimul Hoda, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No.2.
2. This application has been filed for quashing/set
aside the Pirbahore P.S. Case No.369 of 2023 dated
19.05.2023
registered for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC‘).
3. That prosecution case is based upon written
information of the informant namely, Sabiha Ahmad,
Resident of C-4, Al-Nazeer Complex, Dariyapur, Sabzibagh,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37697 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
2/12
Police Station-Pirbahore, District-Patna, which, inter alia,
speaks as follows:-
(i) It is alleged that the informant married with
Ataur Rahman on 15.04.2012 with Islamic Rites and Rituals.
It has been further alleged that informant father has given
Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs), ornaments of Rs.
7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs) and one Hyundai Eon Car as
gift.
(ii) It has been further alleged that her Bidagiri was
made and she came at her Sasural at Dhanbad on
16.04.2012. On 19.04.2012, her father along with family
members came on 19.04.2012. Thereafter, she came back at
Patna along with her husband on 20.04.2012. She has
further alleged that her mother-in-law (died), father-in-law
and sister-in-law living at Jamshedpur have tortured and her
husband refused to sit at small vehicle on 23.04.2012. She
came back at Dhanbad and her husband demanded a big car
and on 24.04.2012, her husband threatened for divorce and
in the meantime, the husband of informant has exchanged
Hyndue car and also change the furniture. She was used to do
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37697 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
3/12
the daily house work. She has stated that she joined in
Pragati Nursing Home at Dhanbad. In meantime, she became
pregnant and gave birth of male child on 14.05.2014 at
Danapur Military Hospital. It has been alleged that in-laws
maltreated her. She appointed as a Railway Doctor in 2015 at
Patherdih, Dhanbad. The monthly salary was kept by her
husband. She has alleged that her husband has not added her
name in her personal account.
(iii) It has further alleged that she has finally
appointed as a Medical officer at Patna. Another female child
born on 12th December, 2019 and in-laws were not happy due
to female child. She came on medical maternity leave. In the
year 2022, the informant went at her Sasural along with the
children at the time of Id Festival. During the period since
29.04.2022 to 04.05.2022 stayed at Dhanbad. Her husband
did not talk with her and during that period, her mother-in-law
died and thereafter, her husband kept her gifted ornaments
and marriage ceremony ring. Thereafter, she came back at
Patna. Her husband has sent three letters of divorce. She has
further stated that she has replied the notice and written a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37697 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
4/12
letter for restoration of conjugal right, thereafter, her
husband became aggressive and abused upon WhatsApp call
to the informant.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners that petitioner no.1 is father-in-law of the
informant/O.P. No.2 and he is suffering from various old
diseases having neuron problem, whereas petitioner no.2 is a
widow Nanad of the informant/O.P. No.2 and residing at
Jamshedpur along with her children. She has no concern with
the affairs of informant. It is submitted that the allegation
qua alleged cruelty and torture upon informant is very much
general and omnibus, as the petitioners have no role in day to
day affairs of the informant and her husband. It is submitted
that the petitioners have been implicated with present case
only being the relatives of the husband of the informant/O.P.
No.2. It is further submitted by learned counsel that from
perusal of FIR, it transpires that there is no ingredients, which
attract the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC
against the petitioners. In support of his submission, learned
counsel has relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37697 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
5/12
Court as available through Abhishek vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1083.
5. On the other hand, Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned
senior counsel appearing for the informant/O.P. No.2
submitted that both the petitioners have physically and
mentally tortured the informant. It is submitted that
petitioner no.2 despite claiming to be a widow is actively
involved in the daily affairs of the household and she has
played instrumental role in harassing the informant/O.P.
No.2.
6. It would be apposite to reproduce para-13, 14,
15, 16 and 17 of the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court
as available through Abhishek‘s case (supra), which are as
under:-
“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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37697 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
6/12similar 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37697 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
7/12
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37697 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
8/12
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 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, [1992
Supp (1) SCC 335], 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37697 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
9/12and 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
information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the
FIR do not disclose a cognizable
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37697 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
10/12offence, 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 person can
ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37697 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
11/12
bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the Act
concerned (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 Act concerned, 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.”
7. In view of aforesaid factual and legal submissions
and by taking note of fact as petitioner no.1 is father-in-law
and petitioner no.2 is widow Nanad, who claimed to be living
separately, which is not disputed by learned counsel
appearing for informant/O.P. No.2 and moreover the thrust of
allegation appears available against husband of O.P.
No.2/informant and both petitioners are facing general and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37697 of 2024 dt.14-07-2025
12/12
omnibus allegation (like taunting) qua alleged cruelty upon
informant/O.P. No.2, who is a doctor by profession and
moreover implication of petitioners appears being father and
sister of the husband of informant/O.P. No.2, accordingly, by
taking a guiding note of Abhishek‘s case (supra), the FIR of
Pirbahore P.S. Case No.369 of 2023 dated 19.05.2023
registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of
the IPC qua both above-named petitioners is hereby
quashed/set aside.
8. Hence, the present application stands allowed.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
9. Let a copy of the judgment be communicated to
the learned trial court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 15-07-2025 Transmission Date 15-07-2025