Vishwanath Pandey & Ors. vs State Of Bihar & Anr.

The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.12.2011, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Buxar in Complaint Case No. 524(C) of 2009, whereby the discharge application filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected and the petitioners were directed to remain present for framing of charge for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code (in short “I.P.C.”) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short “D.P. Act”).

The prosecution case, as emerging from the complaint petition is that the complainant/O.P. No. 2, namely, Mamta Devi was married to Vishal Kumar on 22.04.2004 according to Hindu religious rites and customs. At the time of marriage, the parents of the complainant/O.P. No. 2 had given gifts and articles according to their financial capacity. After solemnization of the marriage, the complainant/O.P. No. 2 went to her matrimonial home, where she started leading her conjugal life.

It is alleged that after some time, the accused persons started demanding a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) as dowry and upon non-fulfillment of the said demand, the complainant/O.P. No. 2 was subjected to physical and mental cruelty. It has further been alleged that the accused persons used to abuse, assault and maltreat the complainant/O.P. No. 2 in connection with the demand of dowry.

The complainant/O.P. No. 2 has further alleged that the accused Nos. 5 and 6, who were also residing in her matrimonial household, subjected her to abuse and misbehaviour. It is further alleged that the complainant/O.P. No. 2 was pressurized to obtain the demanded amount from her parental family, and upon her failure to do so, she was subjected to continuous harassment and ill-treatment.

It is further the case of the complainant/O.P. No. 2 that she was compelled to put her signature on a blank paper, as her husband allegedly intended to obtain a divorce from her. It has also been alleged that the accused persons misbehaved with the parents of the complainant/O.P. No. 2. According to the complainant/O.P. No. 2 on 02.05.2009, she was forcibly driven out of her matrimonial home by the accused persons without any justifiable reason.

It has further been alleged that on 10.06.2009, accused No. 1 came along with four unknown persons and misbehaved with the complainant/O.P. No. 2 and her father. The complainant/O.P. No. 2 has also stated that two children, namely Kashish Kumari and Koushtumbh @ Golu were born out of the wedlock and that both the children were minors at the relevant time.

On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the complainant/O.P. No. 2 instituted Complaint Case No. 524(C) of 2009, in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406 and 120(B) of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act., which was conferred to the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Buxar for enquiry and disposal. After recording statement of the complainant/O.P. No. 2 on oath and statement of enquiry witnesses, the learned S.D.J.M., Buxar took cognizance of the offences under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act vide order dated 14.01.2010.

The petitioners assailed the order taking cognizance before this Court vide Cri. Misc. No. 801/2011, which was dismissed for default vide order dated 23.10.2013.

Subsequently, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Buxar passed the impugned order dated 21.12.2011, whereby he rejected the application seeking discharge filed on behalf of the petitioners, which is under challenge in the present application.

Mr. Manoj kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the family members/in-laws of the complainant/O.P. No. 2 and have no connection, at all, with the matrimonial life of the complainant/O.P. No. 2(wife) and the husband. It is contended that the allegations made in the complaint petition against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature and do not disclose any specific act or overt conduct attributable to any particular petitioner.

The learned counsel further argued that the allegations constituting the offence under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. primarily relate to the matrimonial relationship of the complainant/O.P. No. 2 with her husband, whereas, so far as the present petitioners are concerned, no specific instance of cruelty or harassment has been disclosed against them individually. Their implication appears to be founded merely upon their relationship with the husband of the complainant/O.P. No. 2, without any specific allegation demonstrating their individual participation in the alleged acts of cruelty.

It is further asserted that the allegation of demand of Rs.1,00,000/- is also vague and omnibus and the complainant/O.P. No. 2 does not specify the particular role played by any of the present petitioners in making such demand or in subjecting the complainant/O.P. No. 2 to cruelty on account thereof.

Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer for quashing of the instant application.

It is submitted that the allegations made in the complaint disclose a prima-facie case and, therefore, the correctness of the allegations is required to be examined by the learned trial Court after evidence is led by the parties.

Despite valid service of notice, none appeared on the behalf of O.P. No. 2 to press this application.

This court has considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

At this stage, it would be germane to quote section 498(A) of the I.P.C.:-

The mere existence of matrimonial discord, therefore, cannot automatically result in criminal liability under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. The allegations must disclose the ingredients of the offence against the particular accused.

In the present case, the allegations made against the petitioners have to be examined individually.

The petitioners before this Court are the parents, sisters and other relatives of the husband, viz., petitioner No. 1, Vishwanath Pandey, is the father-in-law of the complainant/O.P. No. 2; petitioner No. 2, Vijaya Devi, is the mother-in-law of the complainant/O.P. No. 2; petitioner No. 3, Raghav Devi @ Guddi, is the married sister of the husband of the complainant/O.P. No. 2; petitioner No. 4, Ragini Devi and petitioner No. 5, Satendar Kumar Pandey are the niece and nephew of the husband of the complainant/O.P. No. 2 respectively.

On bare perusal of the averments made in the complaint petition as well as from the statements recorded in course of enquiry, it is manifestly evident that the allegations against the petitioners are generic, vague and omnibus in nature without specifying with respect to each of them as to what were their acts and conduct towards the complainant/O.P. No. 2 which could be termed to be cruelty.

The complaint contains allegations merely concerning demand of dowry and cruelty in the matrimonial household. However, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, the allegations do not disclose with sufficient specificity the individual acts attributable to each of them so as to constitute the offences alleged.

A matrimonial dispute between husband and wife cannot, by itself, furnish a basis for mechanically implicating every relative of the husband. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, wherein it was held that:

Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Arti Mehta & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.: reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 933, while raising concern over the growing tendency amongst the complainant/O.P. No. 2 of falsely implicating the relatives in order to put undue pressure, has held as follows:

Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the allegations against the petitioners do not contain the necessary particulars from which their individual participation in the alleged offences can reasonably be inferred.

Since the petitioners are in-laws of the complainant/O.P. No. 2, the mere allegation that the accused persons subjected her to cruelty or demanded dowry without sufficiently identifying the specific role played by each of the accused cannot, by itself, justify the initiation and continuation of a criminal prosecution against all such relatives and family members of the husband.

The allegation regarding demand of ₹1,00,000/-undoubtedly finds mention in the complaint, however, the materials do not disclose sufficient particulars regarding the specific participation of each of the petitioners in making such demand so as to attract the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act

The allegations under the D.P. Act substantially arise from the same matrimonial allegations which form the foundation of the prosecution under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C.

Where the allegations against the individual relatives are general and omnibus and do not disclose their specific role, continuation of prosecution against them would not advance the cause of justice.

The jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. At the same time, the said jurisdiction is intended to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice.

It is equally well settled that while considering an application for quashing, the High Court ordinarily does not undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence. However, where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged, or where continuation of the proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of law, interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is justified.

It is also evident from the record that the husband, namely, Vishal Kumar Pandey filed a matrimonial suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal right in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur at Ara, where after notice to the complainant/O.P. No.2, she appeared and filed a written statement and had categorically stated that since her husband is unemployed, she did not want to live with him and thus, considering the above mentioned facts when the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur at Ara dismissed the application filed on behalf of the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 holding that since the wife, namely, Mamta Devi (complainant/O.P. No. 2 herein) was not willing to lead her conjugal life with the petitioner then, the petition filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is meaningless and as such is dismissed.

Whereafter, the husband of the complainant/O.P. No. 2 filed a matrimonial case No. 296 of 2013 in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Buxar where having considered the entire gamut of facts and circumstances and the evidence and deposition of witnesses produced on behalf of the rival parties, the learned Principal Judge vide judgment and decree dated 03.03.2016 and 11.03.2016 allowed the divorce application for dissolution of marriage between the husband and the complainant/O.P. No. 2 which is evident from Annexure 4 appended to this quashing application.

Thus in this backdrop, where the marriage has been resolved between the complainant/O.P. No. 2 and her husband, the continuance of criminal proceedings against the in-laws who are mere parents and relatives of the husband, would tantamount to persecution.

It is true that subsequent dissolution of marriage, by itself, does not wipe out a criminal offence which was, otherwise duly constituted. However, in the present case, this subsequent development has to be considered along with the nature of allegations and the absence of specific material demonstrating individual participation of the petitioners.

The continuation of a criminal proceeding for years in such circumstances would serve no useful purpose where the foundational allegations themselves do not disclose the requisite ingredients of the offences against the individual accused.

The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is not intended to stifle legitimate prosecution. At the same time, the Court cannot remain a silent spectator where continuation of criminal proceedings would result in unnecessary harassment of persons against whom the complaint does not disclose the requisite ingredients of the offences.

As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar (supra), absence of specific allegations and individual roles against the relatives of the husband is a relevant consideration for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Having considered the allegations in the complaint in their entirety, this Court finds that the present case falls within the category where interference is warranted to prevent abuse of the process of law.

Upon consideration of the entire factual and legal conspectus, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

The impugned order dated 21.12.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar in Complaint Case No. 524(C) of 2009, therefore, cannot be sustained and, hence, the same is fit to be quashed.

Accordingly, the order dated 21.12.2011 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Buxar in Complaint Case No. 524(C) of 2009, whereby the discharge application filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected and is, hereby, quashed and set aside and the petitioners stand discharged from the case .

Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 524(C) of 2009, including the consequential proceeding against the petitioners, is hereby quashed.

Thus, this application stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

All pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.