Rajmani Devi & Ors. vs State Of Bihar & Anr.

Date : 21-08-2026

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 15.11.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Patna whereby he has rejected the petition filed by the petitioners under Sections 245 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Pirbahor P.S. Case No. 157 of 2012.

As per the prosecution case, the informant was married to one Sanjay Prasad in the year 1995 according to Hindu rites and customs. Thereafter, her husband, along with his mother, brother and sister-in-law, subjected her to physical and mental cruelty and demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- from her father for business purpose. She has two minor sons, whose upbringing and education are being managed by her. It has further been alleged that on 04.02.2012, the accused persons assaulted her in the presence of local residents, pulled her hair, pushed her and tore her clothes, besides threatening her with further assault and directing her to leave Patna. She had earlier approached Pirbahor Police Station with a written complaint, but no action was taken in that regard.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner no. 1 is the father-in-law of the informant while petitioner no. 2 is the brother-in-law and petitioner no. 3 is the sister-in-law of the informant and they deny the allegation levelled against them in the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that from bare perusal of the F.I.R., it is apparent that the main thrust of the allegations is against the husband, whereas the petitioners have been implicated in the present case on the basis of general and omnibus allegations.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is well settled principle of law as 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, wherein it has been held that when allegation under Section 498(A) of the IPC is against the relatives of the husband, without specific allegation of overt act, the continuation of criminal proceeding as against the relatives of the husband amounts to gross abuse of the process of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the allegation against the petitioners are malicious and vexatious in nature and cognizance has been taken against them in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind. Moreover, it has been submitted that the order refusing to discharge is bad in law and on facts. It has lastly been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners and hence he prays that impugned order, refusing to discharge the petitioners, be quashed.

Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 have opposed the prayer of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has submitted that the F.I.R. and chargesheet disclose the commission of offences by the petitioners. The learned Magistrate, upon finding a prima facie case against the petitioners, summoned them. It has further been submitted that the impugned order rejecting the petitioners’ prayer for discharge is well-reasoned and requires no interference.

Heard the parties and perused the records.

Considering the fact that the allegation against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature and in view of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2023) 16 SCC 666 and Preeti Gupta and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, the proceeding against the above named petitioners is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 15.11.2016, refusing to discharge the petitioners, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Patna, is hereby quashed only with respect to the above named petitioners. However, the proceedings against other co-accused namely, Sanjay Prasad, may continue.

Accordingly, the application stands allowed.