Phuldeo Thakur & Anr. vs The State Of Bihar & Anr.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’), seeking quashing of the order dated 06.08.2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned A.C.J.M.-IV, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Magistrate’) in connection with Trial No.2887 of 2018 arising out of Complaint Case No.2700 of 2017, whereby cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioners herein (in-laws of O.P. No.2) alongwith the husband of O.P. No.2.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage of the complainant (O.P. No.2) was solemnized with co-accused Kripa Shankar Thakur (son of petitioners) on 25.11.2012 according to Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, parents of O.P. No.2 gave sufficient cash, gift and articles. It is further alleged that after the marriage, O.P. No.2 went to her matrimonial home and initially lived peacefully for a while, but subsequently, she was allegedly subjected to mental and physical torture by the accused persons (husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and two sister-in-laws of O.P. No,2) for fulfilment of an additional dowry demand of Rs.5 lakhs, a Maruti Swift Dzire car and 100 grams of gold. During the wedlock, O.P. No.2 and the co-accused Kripa Shankar Thakur were blessed with a son. It is further alleged that the accused persons threw hot rice-water upon the O.P. No.2 while she was preparing meal and, thereafter, on 27.10.2017, the accused persons retained her belongings and ousted her from the matrimonial home. O.P. No.2, thereafter, started residing at her parental home. It is further alleged that despite intervention by her father and his request to the accused persons to take her back to her matrimonial home, they refused to do so on account of non-fulfilment of the alleged dowry demand. The husband of the O.P. No.2 is employed in a private job at Haridwar. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the complainant (O.P. No.2) instituted Complaint Case No.2700 of 2017 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.

Upon perusal of the materials available on record, including the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statements of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Magistrate found a prima facie case and, vide the impugned order dated 06.08.2018, took cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the present petitioners along with the husband of the O.P. No.2. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners herein have preferred the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 06.08.2018 as well as the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of O.P. No.2 and have been falsely implicated on the instigation of parents of the O.P. No.2 and other relatives. Learned counsel further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint petition are omnibus and general in nature and no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioners. There is also no specific allegations or supporting documents showing that the petitioners had subjected the complainant (O.P. No.2) to mental or physical cruelty in connection with any demand for dowry.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners are old persons and are residing separately in their village and have no concern with the day-to-day matrimonial life of O.P. No.2 and her husband. He submitted that petitioner no.1 is a retired bank employee and since he was friends with the father of the O.P. No.2, no dowry was demanded either at the time of marriage or even after the marriage. He further submitted that the O.P. No.2 has matrimonial dispute with her husband. It is next submitted that the husband of O.P. No.2 had instituted Matrimonial Case No.44 of 2018 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, but the mediation failed as O.P. No.2 was not willing to reside with her husband. It is further submitted that the instant complaint case has been instituted with an ulterior motive to exert pressure upon the husband of the O.P. No.2 and his family members. It is, thus, submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this present case, the continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and the impugned order taking cognizance deserves to be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 submitted that the impugned order taking cognizance does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the materials available on record disclose a prima facie case made out against the petitioners. It is, thus, submitted that present application is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.

Learned APP for the State submitted that the O.P. No.2 has filed private complaint against her husband and in-laws. It is further submitted that present petitioners are in-laws of O.P. No.2 and this Court may pass appropriate order in the interest of justice.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The main lis before this Court is: “whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ought to be exercised for quashing the criminal proceeding and the order taking cognizance in order to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice?”

Before examining the merits of the case, it would be apposite to consider the scope and extent of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is intended to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice. Although the power conferred upon the High Court is wide in nature, it is required to be exercised sparingly, cautiously and only in exceptional cases where the continuance of the criminal proceeding is found likely to result in injustice. While exercising such jurisdiction, the High Court ordinarily does not undertake a detailed examination or appreciation of the evidence, nor does it adjudicate disputed questions of fact. The Court is primarily required to ascertain whether the allegations made in the complaint, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against the accused and, further, whether the continuation of such proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr., reported in (2025) 3 SCC 735 has discussed the issue of implicating the relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes on the basis of vague, omnibus and general allegations and held as under:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in Ghanshyam Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1301, as under:

In the present case, the allegations levelled against the petitioners, who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of O.P. No.2, are general, vague and omnibus in nature. Although the complaint alleges demand of Rs.5 lakhs, a Maruti Swift Dzire car and 100 grams of gold and further alleges mental and physical torture, there is no specific allegation identifying any particular act committed by either of the petitioners, nor is there any specific instance and circumstance showing their individual involvement in the alleged cruelty or dowry demand.

The Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently held that in matrimonial disputes, relatives of the husband cannot be prosecuted merely because their names have been mentioned in the complaint or because they are members of the husband’s family. Where the allegations against the relatives are general and omnibus and do not disclose their specific or active involvement in the alleged acts of cruelty or dowry harassment, continuation of criminal proceedings against such relatives amounts to abuse of the process of law. The Court has cautioned that the tendency to implicate all family members in matrimonial disputes must be curtailed and that there must be specific allegations indicating the individual role of the relative sought to be prosecuted.

The same principle is particularly applicable in the present case, where the petitioners are in-laws and the complaint does not attribute any specific overt act to either of them. Mere relationship with the husband, without a specific allegation of participation in dowry demand or cruelty, cannot constitute the ingredients of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of cases has reiterated that generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution against family members in matrimonial disputes.

The principles governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. were authoritatively laid down in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court illustrated categories of cases in which the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law or otherwise secure the ends of justice. One such category is where the allegations made in the complaint or F.I.R., even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence against the accused. Another category covers cases where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could reach the conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, even if the allegations contained in the complaint petition and the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation are accepted in their entirety, the same do not disclose any specific role or overt act attributable to the present petitioners. The allegations of dowry demand and cruelty have been made collectively against the accused persons without specifying the individual conduct of the petitioners. Thus, the materials on record do not disclose the necessary factual foundation for proceeding against the petitioners under either Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code or Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of such criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.08.2018 passed by the learned A.C.J.M.-IV, Muzaffarpur in connection with Trial No.2887 of 2018 arising out of Complaint Case No. 2700 of 2017, insofar as it relates to the present petitioners, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, stands quashed qua the present petitioners.

The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application is, accordingly, allowed.

Interim Order(s), if any, stands vacated.

Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned forthwith for information and needful compliance.