Prem Shanker Yadav & Ors. vs State Of Bihar & Anr.

Date : 07-08-2026 Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Even after granting several opportunities to learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2, there is no representation today also on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2.

This application has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 03.12.2016 passed in Complaint Case No. 3280 of 2014 by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the allegation, the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with petitioner no. 1 in the year 2010 and the initial three years passed on peacefully, however, as the petitioner no. 1 got a job as a constable, the accused persons started making demand of motorcycle as well as gold chain as dowry. It has further been alleged that when the demand of dowry was not met by the father of the complainant, the complainant was assaulted and denied food and clothes and was ousted from her matrimonial home, whereafter, she started residing in her parental home. It has further been alleged that the allegation is in general and omnibus terms that all the accused persons used to assault her. It has further been alleged that, on 05.11.2014, when the father of the complainant went to her matrimonial house, he was told that unless and until the demand of dowry is met, the complainant would not be taken back in her matrimonial house.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that prior to lodging of the present case on 10.11.2014, an application for divorce under the provision of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed before the Principal Judge Family Court, Saran at Chapra, vide divorce case no. 382 of 2014, and when the complainant came to know about filing of divorce against her, she got the present case lodged in order to create defense as retaliatory measure. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has also submitted that, in fact, at an earlier point of time, Janta Bazar P.S. Case No. 64 of 2013 came to be lodged by petitioner no. 1 against the complainant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the IPC and soon thereafter the present complaint case was filed, which was subsequently sent to police under the provision of 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for registration of the FIR. In that case, the allegation against the present complainant was with regard to killing of her own son, in which although, a final form was submitted after investigation, but the learned Judicial Magistrate differing with the final form took cognizance against the complainant and others under Section 304(A) of IPC. Although, the petitioner challenged the said order before the revisional court, but the same came to be dismissed and the trial proceeded for the offences punishable under Section 304(A) of the IPC against the complainant. The present case has been lodged only after these developments took place in order to put pressure and blackmail and the allegation was vexaxious and malicious in nature. It has further been submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is the husband of the complainant, while petitioner no. 2 to 6 are other family members of petitioner no. 1. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has also submitted, referring to the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and has submitted that category no. 7 of the said case is applicable in the facts of the case in favour of the petitioners. Learned senior counsel has also referred to another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitin Ahluwalia Vs. the State of Punjab reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2013 and has submitted that when proceedings of divorce case and other cases are pending, the allegation against the petitioners is nothing but a retaliatory counter blast. Learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that in the case of Preeti Gupta vs. The state of jharkhand reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 and in the case of K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452. It has further been submitted that there is a growing tendency to include the names of all the relatives of the husband in the matrimonial dispute under Section 498A and when no specific role or act is attributed to them in conflict and in such circumstances continuance of prosecution is an abuse of the process of the court. It has further been submitted that the present allegation has been levelled out of malice, grudge and personal vendetta and to spite personal score and the continuation of present prosecution against the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of the court.

Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the present application filed on behalf of the petitioners.

Heard the parties and perused the records.

Considering the facts and circumstance as well as the fact of previous litigations between the parties followed by filing of the present criminal case against the petitioners as well as a retaliatory counter blast to such cases, the impugned order taking cognizance, dated 03.12.2016, passed in Complaint Case No. 3280 of 2014, by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra, is hereby quashed.

This application accordingly stands allowed.