Meera Devi @ Rakhi Kumari & Anr. vs The State Of Bihar & Anr.

Date : 20-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

By way of filing the present application, the petitioners seek quashing of order dated 22.03.2024 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Civil Court, West Champaran at Bettiah in G.R. No.1039/2022 arising out of Bettiah Nagar P.S. Case No.198/2022, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Section 323, 341, 504 and 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 3/4 of the Dowry & Prohibition Act.

The short facts of the case is that the petitioners along with co-accused persons are alleged to have demanded dowry and due to non-fulfillment of the same, they subjected the opposite party no.2 to cruelty. It is further alleged that petitioner no.2 along with sister-in-law of the opposite party no.2 tried to kill her by pressing her against iron rod. Thereafter, all the accused persons took away jewellery of O.P. No.2 and threatened to solemnize second marriage of her husband.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the present petitioners happen to be the mother-in-law and the father-in-law of the opposite party no.2, who have been roped in the present case with false and frivolous allegations only with a view to causing harassment to the entire family of her husband.

It is further submitted that the FIR discloses that the first incident dated 12.01.2022 took place at the Government Quarters at Rajbanshi Nagar, Patna with allegations against the husband of the opposite party no.2 indulging in acts of cruelty inflicted upon her, including certain acts of assault. Subsequently, it has been stated that on 29.01.2022, a Panchayati had been held at Samastipur where these petitioners reside. However, the present case has been filed at Bettiah which is paternal household of the opposite party no.2 where virtually no cause of action has taken place. It is emphatically contended that the cause of action, if any, had arisen only in Patna or to some extent at Samastipur, but not at Bettiah where the present case came to be filed only for the purposes of causing harassment to the accused persons including the present petitioners.

Further submission made on behalf of the petitioners is that there are general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners and the allegations are specific only to the extent of the husband of the opposite party no.2, with whom she was residing separately at Patna. The allegation in the FIR relating to some act of assault by the petitioner no.2 and the sister-in-law of the opposite party no.2 would also not hold good as the final form is submitted in favour of the sister-in-law holding her to be innocent, as such, the said allegation against the petitioner no.2 also fails. Other ornamental allegations have also been made in the said FIR which do not inspire confidence.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 opposes the present application on the ground that there are specific allegations against these petitioners also and at the stage of cognizance only a prima facie case has to be looked into and in cases under Section 498A of IPC there is continuing cause of action, as such, the contention with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the present case is opposed.

I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and I have also gone through the entire materials available on record which includes the FIR, the charge-sheet as also order taking cognizance. Upon perusal of the FIR, it appears that the allegations against these petitioners are general, omnibus and sweeping in nature and specific allegations have only been attributed to the husband of the opposite party no.2. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the opposite party no.2 was staying along with her husband at Patna where the incident of assault dated 12.01.2022 had taken place as has been admitted in the FIR itself. It is also noted that these petitioners are residents of Samastipur where at best a Panchayati had taken place between the parties and the holding of the Panchayati would in no way bring these petitioners also within the ambit of Section 498A of the IPC.

So far as the ground of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it is no doubt a fact that the cause of action had taken place either in Patna or Samastipur while the present case has been filed at Bettiah, but there are a series of judicial pronouncements which lay down the proposition that the cases of such nature have a continuing cause of action and as such, the mental state of torture and cruelty can even continue at the place of residence of the opposite party no.2. However, this Court at this stage would not want to go into legality or illegality of the submission with regard to the territorial jurisdiction as the present case against the petitioners is not fit to be sustained on the basis of the allegations made in the First Information Report itself, legal position settled by way of several judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in the cases of relatives of the husband of the opposite party no.2, where Courts while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. have been cautioned to be extremely circumspect where the allegations are totally general and sweeping in nature and no specific allegations are carved out as against such relatives.

In case of Kahkashan Kausar & Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Ors reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, all earlier judgments relating to the case of relatives of the husband of the informant have been considered and was held that in absence of any specific role attributed against relatives of husband with generalized allegations, it would be unjust if they are forced to go through tribulations of a trial. The Hon’ble Apex Court has gone further to state that an eventual acquittal in trials also inflicts severe scars upon the accused. Thus, a sensitive approach has to be taken before relegating such accused persons to trial.

Further, in cases of Dara Laxmi Narayana Vs. the State of Telangana, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 735 and Geddam Jhansi and Anr. vs. State of Telangana and Ors., reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 263, also it has been held that when family relationships are sought to be brought within the ambit of criminal proceedings rupturing the family bond, Courts should be circumspect and judicious and should allow invocation of criminal process only when there are specific allegations with supporting materials which clearly constitute criminal offences.

In such view of the matter, this Court finds no justification in allowing the criminal prosecution to continue against these petitioners, who are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the opposite party no.2. Moreover, in the background of the fact that they were not even living with the opposite party no.2 and her husband as would be evident from the FIR itself, the credibility of allegations against them is further eroded, as held in Dara Laxmi Narayana (supra).

Considering the entire factual scenario and also taking into consideration the legal spectrum in this regard, this Court is of the considered view that continuance of criminal prosecution against the present petitioners, especially in absence of specific and proximate allegations, would only amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and would also lead to miscarriage of justice. In such view of the matter, the order dated 22.03.2024 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Civil Court, West Champaran at Bettiah in G.R. No.1039/2022 arising out of Bettiah Nagar P.S. Case No.198/2022, so far as it relates to these petitioners, stands quashed.

Accordingly, the present application is allowed.

However, it is made clear that any observation made in the present order shall not prejudice the case of any of the parties during trial of other accused.