Afsha Parween & Ors. vs The State Of Bihar & Anr.

Date : 11-08-2026

Learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application.

Permission is accorded.

This application is dismissed as withdrawn.

Heard Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners assisted by Md. Rahmatullah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh-1, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. Rikesh Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party No.2.

The petitioners have filed this application seeking quashing of the order, dated 15.06.2016, passed in Bihta P.S. Case No. 378 of 2014, by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage of the informant-opposite party No.2 was solemnized with co-accused Shahab Alam @ Md. Shahab Alam on 01.04.2013, according to Mohammadan rites, customs, and ceremonies. It has further been alleged that at the time of the wedding, the parents of the informant presented ₹10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs Rupees) in cash, gold ornaments, and various household articles. It has further been alleged that at the time of the solemnization of marriage itself, the named accused persons, specifically the husband, the father-in-law, the mother-in-law, and the married sister-in-law (Nanad) of the informant jointly raised an additional demand for a Maruti Swift Car and ₹5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs Rupees) in cash as dowry. It is further alleged that when the informant came to her matrimonial home, all the named accused persons reiterated their demand for the Maruti Swift Car and ₹5 Lakhs cash and for non-fulfillment of the said unlawful demands, the informant was subjected to physical assault, mental torture, systematic deprivation of food and medical care and the subsequent conciliation attempts by the informant’s parental family (maike) proved futile. It has further been alleged that during her pregnancy, while the informant was residing at her parental home suffering from Jaundice and advised bed rest, her husband telephonically called her and abused her and insisted on the demand for the car and cash. It is further alleged that on 21.03.2014, an amount of ₹2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs Rupees) was allegedly handed over to the sister-in-law (Nanad) and brother-in-law (Nandosi) and despite the receipt of the said amount, the accused persons continued making demands for the remaining items. It is also alleged that following the birth of a female child at Kurji Hospital, the accused persons again allegedly contacted the informant over the telephone, hurled abuses, demanded dowry and threatened that the husband would be remarried to another woman, if their demands were not fulfilled, whereafter based on the written information of the informant, Bihta P.S. Case No. 378 of 2014 came to be registered against the named accused persons.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.1 is the married sister-in-law (nanad), while petitioner No. 2 is the husband of petitioner No.1 and happens to be the brother-in-law (nandoshi) and the petitioner No.3 happens to be the maternal uncle of the husband of the informant.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the allegations are general and omnibus and the same is fabricated and motivated on account of personal malice, while the petitioners are relatives of the husband of the informant and reside separately in different districts of the States of Bihar and Jharkhand and have got no concern with the day-to-day affairs of the informant and her husband.

It has further been submitted that the husband pronounced triple talaq upon the informant and a decree of confirmation of divorce was finally granted by the Family Court at Giridih in the State of Jharkhand in Matrimonial Suit No. 206 of 2014 vide judgment dated 09.06.2015/22.06.2015.

It has further been submitted that the informant has also filed a matrimonial maintenance case and is receiving the maintenance amount which has subsequently been enhanced by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in revisional jurisdiction.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has further submitted that cognizance has been taken against the petitioners in a mechanical manner without applying judicial mind.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and has referred to paragraph 102 thereof particularly category 1 and 7 to demonstrate that the present case against the petitioners is manifestly attended with malafide and ulterior motives for wrecking vengeance.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Preeti Gupta vs. The state of jharkhand reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stressed that false implication of unmarried or married sisters-in-law, brothers-in-law, and distant relatives, who live separately, leads to severe injustice, if the proceeding against them are allowed to continue, and has submitted that same is the case of the present petitioners.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that mere casual reference to the names of family members in a matrimonial dispute without any specific allegation of active involvement in demand of dowry or physical/mental harassment is insufficient to take cognizance.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has unequivocally ruled that general and omnibus allegations against the relatives of the husband in cases under Section 498(A) of the IPC without attributing specific role or overt acts, constitutes an abuse of the process of the court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also expressed grave concern about the matrimonial litigations having been increased witnessing a tendency to implicate all family members and unless clear, specific and distinct allegations are made, criminal proceedings against in-laws and distant relatives must be quashed in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has submitted that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners being the relatives of the husband, who actively participated in the commission of the offence against the complainant.

It has further been submitted that the parents-in-law of the informant had approached this Court against the impugned order taking cognizance in Cr. Misc. No. 41670 of 2016 and by oral judgment dated 08.09.2017, their prayer was dismissed and the order taking cognizance with respect to them was not interfered with.

It has further been submitted that the impugned order taking cognizance does not warrant interference and is good in law and on facts as well.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

The petitioners are the relatives of the husband of the informant and are married sister-in-law (Nanad), her husband (Nandoshi) and the maternal uncle of the husband of the informant and they admittedly do not reside with the husband of the informant, rather reside at different places. There is also general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners without ascribing specific role to them and the concern of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments, as discussed above, the prosecution against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of the court, although the cognizance order, which was challenged by the parents-in-law in a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., was not interfered with, but the case of the petitioners is quite distinguishable from them as they are persons who do not reside with the husband of the informant nor supposed to be residing with him, their implication cannot be justified. Consequently, the impugned order taking cognizance dated 15.06.2016 passed in Bihta P.S. Case No. 378 of 2014 by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, with respect to the petitioners is hereby quashed. However, further proceeding with respect to petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 50458 of 2016, namely, Shahab Alam @ Md. Shahab Alam, shall continue.

This application accordingly stands allowed.