Patna High Court
Uma Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 9 July, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32036 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-155 Year-2024 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - PATNA CITY
District- Patna
======================================================
1. Uma Devi, Wife of Shri Anjani Kumar
2. Anjani Kumar, S/o Late Harihar Prasad
Both are resident of Ramlakhan Path, Ashok Nagar Road No.8, Police
Station- Kankarbagh, District- Patna - 800020
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Asmita Kumari, W/o Shri Kunal @ Kunal Yadav, D/o Shri Arvind Kumar
R/o Yusufpur, P.S.- Khusrupur, Dist.- Patna.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Mayank Shekhar, Advocate
Mr. Saket Gupta, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ansul, Senior Advocate
: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 09-07-2025
The present quashing petition has been preferred
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short
'CrPC') by the above-named petitioners for quashing of the
order dated 01.03.2024 as passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate-1st Class, Patna City in connection with Patna
Complaint Case No.155 (C) of 2024 titled as Asmita Kumari
vs. Kunal Yadav and Ors. whereby the learned jurisdictional
Magistrate has been pleased to take cognizance for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32036 of 2025 dt.09-07-2025
2/19
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 420, 406, 379
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
'IPC') as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961, which is presently pending in the court of learned
Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna city.
2. The case of prosecution is based upon the
written report of one Asmita Kumari/complainant/O.P. No.2
alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with the
accused No. 1 namely, Kunal @ Kunal Yadav (who is not a
petitioner) as per Hindu rites and rituals on 12.06.2022 at
Patna. It is alleged that the engagement ceremony of the
complainant/O.P. No.2 with the accused No. 1 Kunal Yadav
was organized at Hotel Maurya Patna, for which an expense of
Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lacs) occurred, and the same was
solely borne by the father of the complainant. The
complainant further alleged in the complaint that the marriage
expense of Rs. 12,00,000/- (rupees twelve lacs) was also
borne by the father of the complainant, which the accused
persons allegedly refused to share the same. It is further
alleged by the complainant that her father has gifted her cash
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32036 of 2025 dt.09-07-2025
3/19
worth Rs. 35,00,000/- (rupees thirty five lacs), gold and
silver jewellery worth Rs. 6,75,000/-(rupees six lacs seventy
five thousand) cash worth Rs. 25,00,000/- (rupees twenty
five lacs) for purchase of car and cash amount worth Rs.
3,00,000/- (rupees three lacs) for purchase of household
items. Cash as mentioned aforesaid was allegedly handed
over to the accused Nos. 1, 2 & 3, namely, Kunal Yadav,
Anjani Kumar and Uma Devi. It is further alleged that cash
worth Rs. 15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lacs) was handed over
to accused No. 5 namely, Shri Sunil Kumar for purchase of
car on 08.05.2022. The complainant further alleged that after
solemnization of her marriage, she went to her matrimonial
home situated at Kankarbagh, Patna. She was treated well by
all the accused persons for first few months. It is alleged that
the behavior of the accused persons deteriorated thereafter,
and then accused persons raised a further dowry demand for
cash of Rs. 50,00,000/- (rupees fifty lacs) for purchase of a
flat. The complainant was pressurized to bring such amount
from her father and when she refused to do so, then the
complainant was subjected to verbal and physical abuse. The
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32036 of 2025 dt.09-07-2025
4/19
complainant allegedly was induced by the accused nos. 2, 3, 5
& 6, namely, Anjani Kumar, Uma Devi, Sunil Kumar and Pinki
Kumari to transfer an amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- (rupees
eleven lacs only) through installments in the name of
repairing of her matrimonial home situated at Patna. The
inducement was allegedly supported by the accused no. 4,
namely Priyanka Priyadarshi through her personal presence or
virtually through mobile call. It is further alleged that at the
instance of accused nos. 2 & 4, namely, Anjani Kumar and
Priyanka Priyadarshi, the accused no. 1 Kunal @ Kunal Yadav
used to take the EMI amount of the flat, which was purchased
by him at Bengaluru (Karnataka) from the complainant.
Moreover, it was also alleged that her whole salary was spent
by the accused persons for their house-hold goods and
expenditure. It is further alleged that she was compelled to
leave her matrimonial home when on 18.11.2023 during
chhath festival the accused No. 1 Kunal Yadav along with
accused Nos. 2 & 3, Anjani Kumar and Uma Devi took the
complainant with them after being persuaded by the common
acquaintances but, thereafter, the complainant was verbally
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32036 of 2025 dt.09-07-2025
5/19
abused when she was referred to as an unattractive and
degraded person. It is further alleged that the complainant in
order to save her matrimonial life and family reputation did
not protest and accepted everything. Accused Nos. 1, 2 & 3,
Kunal Yadav, Anjani Kumar and Uma Devi allegedly acted as
per the instruction of accused no. 4, Priyanka Priyadarshi. It is
alleged that the complainant was treated as a servant and she
was compelled to do all the household work after her official
works. It is further alleged that when the complainant asked
to keep a maid to the household works, she was assaulted by
them. It is further alleged that on 25.01.2024, the accused
No. 1 Kunal @ Kunal Yadav took all the belongings from the
flat and vacate it and put a lock over the same, when the
complainant refused to share her salary income with the
accused No. 1, Kunal Yadav. The complainant at that time
was in her office and she was ignorant about the same. The
complainant further stated that she got the entry into the flat
with the help of the members of the housing society and none
of the accused persons i.e. accused nos. 1, 2 & 3 were picking
up the calls. It is further stated that after the aforesaid
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32036 of 2025 dt.09-07-2025
6/19
incident, the complainant came to the house of her father and
is working from there since 12.02.2024. The complainant
further alleged that the accused Nos. 2 & 3, namely, Anjani
Kumar and Uma Devi came to their home at Bengaluru and
stayed there for many days and instigated their son against
the complainant. The complainant also alleged that the
accused No. 1 Kunal Yadav in a designed conspiracy has
cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/-
(rupees fifty lacs) from her mobile and also took away her
jewellery, educational qualification, certificates and passport.
It is further alleged that the accused persons also threatened
the complainant that the accused no. 1 Kunal Yadav will
divorce her, sell his flat at Bengaluru and will marry with
another girl. The complainant also informed the concerned
police station that the accused no. 1 took all the belongings of
the flat and left it by putting another lock and she got her
entry with the help of the society members. It is alleged that
the accused persons, namely, Sunil Kumar and Pinki Kumari
came to the paternal house of the complainant and verbally
abused her and informed her that the accused No. 1, namely,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32036 of 2025 dt.09-07-2025
7/19
Kunal Yadav will only keep her when they will fulfil the dowry
demand. It is also alleged that the accused nos. 4, 5 & 6
again came to the paternal house of the complainant on
13.02.2024
and physically abused her when she refused to
mark her signature over some non judicial stamp paper, which
the accused no. 4 was referring to as “Divorce Papers”.
3. It is submitted by Mr. Mayank Shekhar, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are
innocent being in-laws and they have committed no offence.
They have been implicated out of their relations only with the
husband of O.P. No.2, namely, Kunal Yadav. Clarifying the
relation of petitioners, it is submitted that petitioner no.1 is
the mother of the husband of O.P. No.2, whereas petitioner
no.2 is the father of the husband of O.P. No.2. It is submitted
that the husband of O.P. No.2 employed in Bengaluru, where
he purchased a flat bearing No.311, 3rd Floor, DX MAX SISTA,
Bharath Housing Society, Subramanyapura, Uttarahalli,
Bengaluru, before the marriage, where he was living with his
old parents (petitioners). The marriage of O.P. No.2 with the
son of petitioner nos.1 and 2 was solemnized out of an
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32036 of 2025 dt.09-07-2025
8/19
acquaintance developed on online matrimonial portal. It is
further submitted that the engagement ceremony in
connection with the present marriage took place on
06.06.2022, whereafter, the marriage between O.P. No.2
and accused no.1, namely Kunal @ Kunal Yadav, who is not
the petitioner for the present was solemnized on 12.06.2022
as per Hindu rites and rituals at Patna. Thereafter, both of
them went back to Bengaluru on 18.07.2022. It is pointed
out that both wife and husband are software engineers. They
have an independent life and an independent source of
income. It is pointed out that the whole issue and differences
surfaced only when the complainant/O.P. No.2 had conceived
in the month of September, 2022 but, she was reluctant to
have a child at the beginning of her marriage. She made all
possible efforts to terminate the pregnancy on 07.12.2022 in
accordance with the available medical and legal provisions.
She was taken to the hospital, where after some test were
conducted, it was detected that the foetus’s heart beat had
stopped and the pregnancy of the complainant was aborted.
4. While arguing further qua deteriorating
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32036 of 2025 dt.09-07-2025
9/19
relationship with O.P. No.2 with her husband, Mr. Mayank
Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners
straightway submitted that both the petitioners went to
Bengaluru before the marriage. They never reside together
and their implication is being mother-in-law and father-in-law
only with a harassing attitude out of ulterior and oblique
motive. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been
falsely implicated with a malicious intent to disrupt the peace
and harmony of the entire family.
5. Mr. Shekhar further pointed out that from the
face of the complaint, there is no prima facie case qua
allegation raised for cheating under Section 420 of the IPC,
and also qua criminal breach of trust as punishable under
Section 406 of the IPC is made out. The allegation of theft is
also misconceived against both petitioners. Taking cognizance
against all such penal provisions along with Section 498-A of
the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961, is bad in the eyes of law and, therefore, the cognizance
order dated 01.03.2024 with all its consequential proceedings
qua both above-named petitioners is liable to be quashed/set
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32036 of 2025 dt.09-07-2025
10/19
aside.
6. Learned counsel in support of the aforesaid
submissions further submitted that from the face of the
complaint, the core issue of difference between O.P. No.2 and
her husband appears to surfaced out of the transfer of
ownership of the flat purchased by husband of O.P. No.2,
where the complainant claimed that EMI was transferred from
her salary. It is also submitted that from para-13 of the
complaint, it transpires that O.P. No.2 straightway went to
Bengaluru after attending “Chhat Puja” on 18.11.2023
whereafter, she claimed to return on 12.02.2024 to Patna.
The alleged occurrence admittedly took place at Bengaluru,
with her husband, whereafter, just to array the petitioners
being relatives, a false cause of action was created for the
occurrence of 13.02.2024 to make out only the complaint
case maintainable at Patna, where the mother of the
complainant/O.P. No.2 is working as an advocate. It is also
submitted that the occurrence as narrated in para-16 of the
complaint nowhere discloses where it took place.
7. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32036 of 2025 dt.09-07-2025
11/19
counsel has relied upon the legal report of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court as available through Kamal and Ors. vs.
State of Gujarat and Anr. as reported in 2025 INSC 504
and Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh as reported
in (2023) 16 SCC 666.
8. Mr. Ansul, learned senior counsel appearing for
O.P. No.2 submitted that the specific allegation is available
against petitioners qua occurrence of 13.02.2024, which took
place at the residence of the complainant herself at about
7:30 A.M. It is also submitted by Mr. Ansul that petitioner
no.1 and 2 were actively participated in the alleged incident
and played a pivotal role in causing the breakdown of the
matrimonial relationship between O.P. No.2 and her husband,
namely, Kunal Yadav.
9. It would be apposite to reproduce para 12 of
the legal report of Kamal Case (supra), which is as under:-
“12. Even if we assume that there are
some allegations of assault and of physical and
mental torture of the complainant, but they are
against the husband. As against the parents in law,
the allegations are only of extending taunts and of
not parting with the money for managing household
expenses. Specific details in respect of those taunts
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32036 of 2025 dt.09-07-2025
12/19have not been disclosed. Moreover, a few taunts
here and there is a part of everyday life which for
happiness of the family are usually ignored.
Interestingly, as per own allegations in the FIR, the
complainant admits that when she reported those
issues to her parents and uncle, she was counselled
to bear patience. In the circumstances, in our
considered view, no case to proceed against the
parents in law, namely, the second and third
appellant is made out. In so far as the first appellant
is concerned, there are allegations of physical and
mental torture of the complainant at his behest.
Consequently, the case may proceed qua the first
appellant.”
10. It would be apposite to reproduce paras-13,
14, 15, 16 and 17 of the legal report of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court as available through Abhishek 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 similar situation where the High Court had
refused to quash a FIR registered for various offences,
including Section 498A IPC. Noting that the foremost
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32036 of 2025 dt.09-07-2025
13/19issue 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32036 of 2025 dt.09-07-2025
14/19allegations 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32036 of 2025 dt.09-07-2025
15/19constitute 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 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,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32036 of 2025 dt.09-07-2025
16/19even 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.
(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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32036 of 2025 dt.09-07-2025
17/19reach 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. From the perusal of the record and the
arguments as canvassed by learned counsel appearing for the
parties, it transpires that the petitioners were not present on
the alleged date of occurrence, i.e. 13.02.2024 which took
place in the house of the complainant/O.P. No.2, for which
the present complaint case was lodged. It further transpires
that the implication of the petitioners appears to be solely on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32036 of 2025 dt.09-07-2025
18/19
account of their status as in-laws and certain differences
alleged to have arisen on 11.01.2023, which were apparently
resolved thereafter. No specific allegation of physical assault
or abuse has been attributed to the petitioners. Moreover, the
contents of the complaint petition do not disclose any prima
facie ingredients constituting offences punishable under
Sections 420, 406 and 379 of the IPC, as well as sections 3
and 4 of the DP Act, in so far as the petitioners are
concerned.
12. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the
complaint, on a prima facie reading indicates that the
petitioners have been arrayed as accused solely on account of
their relationship as the parents of the husband of O.P. No.2,
with the apparent intent to harass them, actuated by an
ulterior and oblique motive arising from the strained
matrimonial relationship between the complainant and her
husband, namely, Kunal Yadav, at Bengaluru.
13. Accordingly, by taking guiding note of
Abhishek’s case (supra), the order dated 01.03.2024 as
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Patna City, in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32036 of 2025 dt.09-07-2025
19/19
connection with Patna Complaint Case No.155 (C) of 2024
qua both above-named petitioners is hereby quashed/set
aside, with all its consequential proceedings.
14. The quashing application stands allowed.
15. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated
to the learned trial court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 18-06-2025 Uploading Date 09-07-2025 Transmission Date 09-07-2025
[ad_1]
Source link