IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.466 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-504 Year-2019 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE District-

Rohtas ======================================================

1. Binod Singh @ Bindeshwari Chandrabanshi @ Binod Chandrabanshi Son Of Late Tapeshwari Chandrabanshi Village- Bindu Bigaha Po And Ps Haider Nagar District Palamu Jharkhand

2. Smt. Sushila Devi @ Smt. Sushila Devi Wife Of Bindeshwari Chandrabanshi @ Binod Chandravanshi Village- Bindu Bigaha Po And Ps Haider Nagar District Palamu Jharkhand

3. Priyanka Kumari Daughter Of Bindeshwari Chandrabanshi @ Binod Chandrabanshi Village- Bindu Bigaha Po And Ps Haider Nagar District Palamu Jharkhand

4. Punam Gupta @ Punam Devi Wife Of Madan Gupta Resident Of B-11, Ankur Bihar, D.L.F. Ankur Biarh, Ghaziabad, City North East Delhi, P.S. Karawal Nagar, North East Delhi, Mo-4, Gali No.2 Chauhan Patti, Ps- Sonia Bihar, New Delhi ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar BIHAR

2. Asha Devi Wife Of Ravindra Chandrabanshi Resi Vill- Po-Panssar, Ps-

Karakat(Gorai), Rohtas ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rabindra Kumar, Adv.

For the informant : Ms. Usha Kumari, Adv.

Mr. Kanhaiya Pandey, Adv.

For the State : Mr.Akhileshwar Dayal, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER

3 20-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 and learned A.P.P.

for the State.

2. The petitioners have made the following prayer in this application :-

“That this is an application for quashing / declaring the order dated 31.01.2020 passed in Complaint Case No. 504/2019 by which the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj, Rohtas issued summon to the petitioners saying offence under Sections 498(A) of the I.P.C and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is prima facie made out against them”

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that they all including the husband of the O.P. No. 2 had been demanding dowry immediately after marriage and they were pressurizing her to bring Rs. 2,00,000/- from her father. It has further been alleged that all the accused persons used to insult and abuse the complainant on various occasions and thereafter she was ousted from the house.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and the sister-in-law of the O.P. No. 2 while the petitioner no. 4 has no concern with the family of the petitioner nos. 1 to 3. It has next been submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated with general and omnibus allegation and from bare perusal of the complaint case, it would be evident that barring few lines with regard to general nature of allegation of demand of dowry no specific allegation has been made against the petitioners especially the petitioner nos. 3 and 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has come down very heavily on such cases where the entire family members of the husband of the complainant/ victim has been made accused in such matrimonial dispute without there being any specific allegation of overt act alleged against them. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken strong objection to the action of the trial court also in taking cognizance against those relatives of husband and passes orders mechanically without verifying the evidence with regard to the allegation levelled against the accused persons, especially immediate relative or otherwise. Learned counsel further submits that the issuance of summon against the petitioner vide order dated 31.01.2022 after taking cognizance under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act does not confirm to the various judicial pronouncements. It would be evident that the same has been passed without application of judicious mind.

5. The