Moinuddin Miyan & Ors. vs State Of Bihar & Anr.

Date : 18-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2.

The instant application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 01.12.2017 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sherghati, by which cognizance came to be taken against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in connection with Kothi P.S. Case No. 18 of 2016.

As per the prosecution case, the marriage of the informant was solemnized with co-accused Faiyaz in the year 2013. After the marriage, the accused persons, including the present petitioners, allegedly started subjecting the informant to cruelty in connection with the demand for dowry. It is alleged that the accused persons used to instigate and pressurize her husband to demand dowry in the form of cash, as well as for the purchase of a vehicle and a motorcycle. Pursuant to such instigation and demand, the husband of the informant allegedly subjected her to brutal physical assault and persistently demanded dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with a motorcycle. It is further alleged that the accused persons, including the present petitioners, made attempts to burn the informant but somehow she managed to save herself.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners who happens to be the father-in-law (petitioner no.1), mother-in-law (petitioner no. 2) elder brothers-in-law (petitioner no. 3 and 4) and Sister-in-law (petitioner no. 5) of the informant. It has further been submitted that the dispute arose out of matrimonial discord between the informant and her husband, and the allegations against the petitioners are merely a consequence of the said matrimonial dispute. It has further been submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are vague, general and omnibus in nature and no overt act has been attributed to any of them. It has also been submitted that it is a well settled principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Preeti Gupta and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741, Rajesh Sharma and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 where the allegations under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, levelled against the relatives of the husband, are vague, general and omnibus in nature and without specific allegation of overt act, continuation of the criminal proceedings against them would amount to a gross abuse of the process of the Court.

Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has submitted that although there is general and omnibus allegation, but there was a common intention by the petitioners to force the informant to bring dowry and there was a prior meeting of minds among the accused persons with regard to the commission of the alleged offence. It has further been submitted that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners from the facts and circumstances of the case and the impugned order does not require interference as the same is good on law and facts.

Heard the parties and perused the records.

From perusal of the records, this Court finds that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature and further the fact that no offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is made out in which cognizance has been taken and with respect to allegation against 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code the same is general and omnibus and further placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1083 and Preeti Gupta and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, the proceeding against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.

In such view of the matter, the order taking cognizance dated 01.12.2017, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sherghati in connection with Kothi P.S. Case No. 18 of 2016, is hereby quashed. However, further proceeding with respect to co-accused Faiyaz shall continue.

Accordingly, the application stands allowed.

It is made clear that the observations made in the present order are confined solely to the adjudication of the present application and shall not prejudice or otherwise affect either of the parties in any pending proceeding before any other forum.