Patna High Court – Orders
Prabha Pathak @ Prabha Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 23 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61669 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
1. Prabha Pathak @ Prabha Devi Wife of Late Bhawanand Pathak R/o Village-
Choraut Uttari, Ward No.1, P.S.- Choraut, District- Sitamarhi
2. Priya Kumari @ Priya Devi D/o Late Bhawanand Pathak, W/o Sujit Kumar
Pathak R/o Village- Choraut Uttari, Ward No.1, P.S.- Choraut, District-
Sitamarhi
3. Priti @ Priti Jha @ Priti Devi D/o Late Bhawanand Pathak, W/o Vipin Jha
R/o Village- Choraut Uttari, Ward No.1, P.S.- Choraut, District- Sitamarhi.
Presently Residing at B-5/52, Sector-5, Rohini, P.S.- Buddha Bihar, District-
North West, Delhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Priyanka Kumari Wife of Prabhat Pathak, D/o Gopal Krishna Thakur
Presently residing at Village- Gharharawa, P.S.- Parihar, District- Sitamarhi
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Harendra Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 23-07-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. Despite notice being issued to the O.P. No. 2 under
both modes and the same being received personally by the O.P.
No. 2 as per the service report no one appears on behalf of the
O.P. No. 2.
3. The present application has been preferred by the
petitioners for quashing of the FIR bearing Sitamarhi Mahila P.S
Case No. 34 of 2024 (GR No. 1917 of 2024) registered for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61669 of 2024(3) dt.23-07-2025
2/11
offences under Sections 498 (A), 341, 323, 504, 406, 506/34 of
the I.P.C.
4. The prosecution, in brief, is that the informant/ O.P.
No. 2 solemnized marriage with Prabhat Pathak on 26.05.2013
and the second marriage (duragman) of the informant was
solemnized in March, 2014. It is alleged that the husband of the
informant abused and snatched away the ornaments, clothes and
certificates and forcefully sent the O.P. No. 2 to her parents
home. It is further alleged that the husband of the informant
never came to the house of the informant and always used to
abused her on phone and it was finally alleged that the named
accuse persons including the present petitioners were
demanding Rs. 15,00,000/- and hence, the present FIR has been
lodged.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Petitioner No. 1 is the mother-in-law while the Petitioner Nos. 2
and 3 are the married Sister-in-law (nanad) of the informant/
O.P. No. 2, are living separately at their respective homes away
from that of her brother. It is further submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have falsely been
implicated in this case and from mere perusal of the FIR it
would be evident that the allegations levelled against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61669 of 2024(3) dt.23-07-2025
3/11
petitioners are of general and omnibus in nature and nothing
specific has been alleged against the petitioners. He further
submits that there is no specific allegation of demand of dowry
or torture levelled against the petitioners in order to draw any of
the offences mentioned in the FIR.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits
that the informant had left her matrimonial home in the year
2021 on her own as she was not staying happily with the
petitioners and the allegation made in the FIR are all concocted
and in order to substantiate his submissions, he draws the
attention of this Court towards Annexure-P/2 wherein the
informant had uploaded her profile in a matrimonial website
stating herself to be a divorcee admitting that she has one child,
however, also stating that she is not living together with her
husband. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that
from perusal of the Annexure- P/3, it would be evident from the
messages which was shared between the informant and her
daughter where she had been asking her daughter to talk to her
husband/father of her daughter to sign on the divorce paper and
she has also asked that if the daughter permits, she would also
solemnize marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submits that all these conversations, whatsapp chat and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61669 of 2024(3) dt.23-07-2025
4/11
messages were prior to lodging of the F.I.R., which would go on
to show that she was also having an affair and was adamant to
solemnize marriage with another person and only because the
petitioners and her husband were not adhering to her request to
give her divorce with mutual consent, the present case has been
lodged to wreak vengeance.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submits
that the petitioners being the in-laws of the informant have been
implicated in the present case in order to coerce the husband of
the informant to concede to her demands. He further submits
that the present criminal proceeding against the petitioners are
baseless and would constitute an abuse of the process of law
especially for the fact that there is no specific allegation against
the petitioners.
8. This Court has perused the materials available on
record especially the Annexures-P/2 and P/3 which speaks about
the conduct of the informant prior to the lodging of the present
FIR and from perusal of the contents of the FIR it is clear that
the allegations against the petitioners who are mother-in-law
and sisters-in-law respectively were largely general and there
was nothing specific against them. The informant has not given
any concrete details of dowry demands or acts of cruelty
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61669 of 2024(3) dt.23-07-2025
5/11
attributable to the petitioners and the separate residence of
Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 further demolish the allegations levelled
by the informant against them and therefore in absence of prima
facie evidence to establish their involvement in the alleged
offences of torture and demand of any amount, the proceedings
against the mother-in-law and the sisters-in-law cannot be
sustained.
9. It is a well settled law that criminal proceedings
should not be used as a tool for harassment or vendetta and the
allegations in a criminal complaint should be such that it
discloses a prima facie case which would then subject the
individual to the rigors of a criminal trial. This Court is aware of
the fact that the provisions of Section 498-A of the IPC are
intended to protect women from cruelty and harassment, they
should not be used to settle personal scores or pursue ulterior
motives.
10. It would be apt to reproduce paragraph nos. 13,
14, 15, 16 & 17 of the judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083, which reads
as under:-
“13. Instances of a husband’s family members
filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61669 of 2024(3) dt.23-07-2025
6/11launched 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 inlaws 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 inlaws
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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61669 of 2024(3) dt.23-07-2025
7/11
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61669 of 2024(3) dt.23-07-2025
8/11apropos 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 State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan
Lal and Ors [(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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61669 of 2024(3) dt.23-07-2025
9/11of 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
information 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61669 of 2024(3) dt.23-07-2025
10/11
(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 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.”
11. In view of the aforesaid legal and factual
submissions and also taking note of the fact that the allegations
against the petitioners are devoid of any merit, manifestly
frivolous and fails to disclose a prima facie case, the
continuation of criminal proceeding in such circumstances
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61669 of 2024(3) dt.23-07-2025
11/11
would amount to an abuse of the process of law and would
result in a miscarriage of justice.
12. Accordingly, the F.I.R., bearing Sitamarhi Mahila
P.S. Case No. 34 of 2024 (GR No. 1917 of 2024) qua the above
named petitioners is hereby quashed.
13. The present quashing application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Jyoti/-
U T