Gopal Jha & Ors. vs The State Of Bihar & Anr.

Date : 28-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party No. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the application with respect to petitioner No.1, namely, Gopal Jha, who has died during the pendency of this application.

Prayer is allowed.

This application is dismissed as withdrawn with respect to the petitioner No.1.

The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 14.02.2017, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, in G.R. No. 114 of 2015, arising out of Ghoghardiha P.S. Case No. 111 of 2015, whereby and whereunder processes against the petitioners have been issued after taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 498A, 379, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage of informant-opposite party No. 2 was solemnized with Pankaj Kumar Jha on 04.06.2011, according to the Hindu rites and rituals and, initially, the informant was given normal treatment, however, thereafter, a demand of a four-wheeler as dowry was made by the accused persons and for non-fulfillment of the same, the informant was subjected to mar-pit, ill-treatment and even threatened to be killed. It has further been alleged that after the informant gave birth to a girl child, she was taken to Jhanjharpur where her husband met an Advocate for divorce and an attempt was made to get prescribed some medicines by the doctor and to declare her insane. It has further been alleged that on 18.01.2015, at about 08:00 AM, she was asked by her father-in-law for tea, upon which she said that she will be providing it in ten minutes as she was feeding the baby, all the accused persons thereafter started beating her and also poured kerosene oil upon her and were going to lit her on fire, but due to intervention of a friend of her uncle she could be saved and was taken along by him to her maternal home, while her ornaments and clothes were retained by the accused persons.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No. 2 is the elder brother-in-law (bhaisur), petitioner No. 3 is the mother-in-law while petitioner No. 4 is the sister-in-law (gotni), respectively of the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that there is general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that prior to lodging of the present case, the husband of the informant has filed a Matrimonial Case No. 232 of 2014 on 04.08.2014, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage. The order-sheet of the said suit has been brought on record by ways of Annexure-2 series and on perusal thereof, it transpires that the said case was admitted on 17.09.2014 and the order dated 21.01.2015, goes to show that the informant had received the notice and thereafter the present case came to be lodged on 18.01.2015 only to create a defence.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and Another, reported in (2024) 6 S.C.R. 129, Nitin Ahluwalia Vs. the State of Punjab reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2013 and K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452, to submit that there is growing tendency to falsely implicate the relatives and other family members of the husband of the complainant/informant in a case of matrimonial discord on general, omnibus and vague allegations, which amounts to abuse of the process of the court and, thus, prosecution against them should not continue.

It has further been submitted that in its judgment in the case of Preeti Gupta vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed deep concern about growing tendency of naming all the relatives of the husband in Section 498A IPC FIRs as a matter of course.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further 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 category No. 7, as discussed in paragraph 102 thereof, and has, thus, submitted that the present allegation against the petitioners is vexatious and malicious one out of personal vendetta and the proceedings against them should not continue.

Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party No.2 opposed the prayer of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

Heard the parties and perused the record.

Considering the facts and circumstances, the impugned order taking cognizance dated 14.02.2017, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, in G.R. No. 114 of 2015, arising out of Ghoghardiha P.S. Case No. 111 of 2015, as against the petitioners only, is hereby quashed.

The application stands allowed.