IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23435 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-42 Year-2020 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-

Patna ======================================================

1. Ramuna Devi Wife Of Late Ram Prasad Verma R/O- Village- Ajwan, P.S.-

Naubatpur, District- Patna

2. Madhuri Singh Wife Of Ujjawal Singh, Daughter Of Late Ram Prasad Verma R/O- Mohalla- Mithila Colony, Nashriganj, P.S.- Danapur, District-

Patna

3. Ujjawal Singh Son Of Not Given R/O- Mohalla- Mithila Colony, Nashriganj, P.S.- Danapur, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Kumari savera wife of uttam raj @ shiv kumar verma r/o- mohalla-

shatichawra colony, behind registry office, danapur, p.s.- Danapur, district-

patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

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

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Satya Prakash, Adv.

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL ORAL ORDER

5 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been filed by the petitioners invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for quashing of the order dated 11.02.2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Civil Court, Danapur in Complaint Case No. 42(C)/2020 whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taking under Section 498(A), 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The prosecution case is that the informant alleges that her marriage has been solemnized with Uttam Raj in the year 2017 and after marriage she started to live with her husband and mother-in-law in a rental house. She further alleged that the sister of husband who were residing nearby only used to torture her and demand dowry of Rs. 2 lakhs . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the prayer with regard to petitioner no. 1 has already been withdrawn.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that with regard to petitioner no. 2 and 3, they are married sister and her husband. They live separately and have no connection with day to day life of the complainant. He further relies upon the observation given by by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [2023 SCC Online SC 1083] and submitted that the petitioner no. 2 and 3 were implicated only only of their relations with husband of O.P. No. 2.

“(13) Instances of a husband's family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on this score.

We may now take note of some decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation where the High Court had refused to quash a FIR registered for various offences, including Section 498A IPC. Noting that the foremost issue that required determination was whether allegations made against the in-laws were general omnibus allegations which would be liable to be quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions wherein concern was expressed over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed that false Implications by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. On the facts of that case, it was found that no specific allegations were made against the in-laws by the wife and it was held that allowing their prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws would result in an abuse of the process of law. It was also noted that a criminal trial, leading to an