IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12841 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-476 Year-2018 Thana- AGAMKUAN District- Patna ======================================================

1. Chandra Bhushan Prasad Son of late Prahlad Chaudhary Resident of Village - H/G Flat no.4/38 Sector - 7, Block- 4, Bahaduerpur Housing Colony, P.S.-

Agamkuan, Distt.- Patna.

2. Rama Kumari W/o Chandra Bhushan Prasad Resident of Village - H/G Flat no.4/38 Sector - 7, Block- 4, Bahaduerpur Housing Colony, P.S.-Agamkuan, Distt.- Patna.

3. Harjit Rahul Son of Chandra Bhushan Prasad Resident of Village - H/G Flat no.4/38 Sector - 7, Block- 4, Bahaduerpur Housing Colony, P.S.-Agamkuan, Distt.- Patna.

4. Rashmi Kumari W/o Arvind Kumar Resident of Village - Shekhpura, P.S.-

Shastri Nagar, Dist.- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Pinki Kumari D/O Chandrika Chaudhary Resident of Gola Road, Danapur, P.S.- Danapur, Distt - Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Md. Anisur Rahman, Adv.

Md. Khalid Anwar, Adv.

For the State Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, Adv.

For the O.P. No. 2 Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, Adv.

Mr. Dewendra Nr. Singh, Adv.

Mr. Utsav Anand, Adv.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 12-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 19.06.2019 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Patna City in Agamkuan P.S. Case No. 476 of 2018 (G.R. No. 3404 of 2018) whereby and whereunder the learned court below has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 494, 341, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners and summons have been issued.

3. The present petitioners are the father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and the married sister-in-law of the opposite party no. 2, who have been made an accused in Agamkuan P.S. Case No. 476 of 2018 dated 09.07.2028 with the allegations of demand of dowry and torture having been committed upon the informant i.e. opposite party no. 2. There are also allegations of some physical assault and that of contracting of a second marriage by the husband of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it would be evident from a bare perusal of the first information report that the allegations made therein are general and omnibus in nature with no specific allegations on these petitioners. It has also been submitted that the husband of the informant, Ranjit Rahul, made all efforts to protect the conjugal relations with the informant and even filed a matrimonial case for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act vide Matrimonial Case No. 5481 of 2018 before the court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna wherein notices were also issued to the informant, however, she chose not to appear in the said matrimonial case and the matter was put for ex-parte hearing leading to a decree of restitution of conjugal rights having been passed in favour of the husband. As far as the case of these petitioners are concerned, a specific averment has been made in paragraph-9 of the petition that the informant and her husband had been living separately from the petitioners and they had no concern with the day to day family affairs of the informant or her husband. It has further been submitted that totally vague and baseless allegations of demand of dowry and subjecting the informant to torture has been imputed against the petitioners whereas they have never indulged in the acts as alleged by the informant and only by virtue of they being the family members of the husband of the informan