The Patna High Court quashed criminal proceedings in Section 498A IPC case against in-laws observing that the allegations made against them are general and omnibus in nature.

The Petitioners preferred an Application under Section 482 CrPC to set aside the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance against the Petitioners in cruelty and dowry case.

The Bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Abhishek V. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023), wherein it was observed that “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”.

Advocate Prem Kumar represented the Petitioners, while Advocates Shrawan Kumar and Ajay Kumar Jha represented the Opposite Parties.

Brief Facts

The Petitioners were facing allegations of cruelty and demanding dowry from their brother’s wife. The sister-in-law of the Petitioners alleged that she was tortured for non fulfillment of the demand for dowry and a motorcycle.

An FIR was filed against the Petitioners and the Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498(A)/504/506/34 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the Petitioners and other Accused Persons. The Petitioners contended that they are being implicated only for the reason that they are relatives/family members of the husband of the Opposite Party No. 2.

Court’s Reasoning

The Patna High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Abhishek case in which it was observed that there is a tendency to implicate the husband and all his immediate relations in complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. Thus, the Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. It was also emphasised that what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in the commission of that offence under Section 498A IPC.

In the light of the above, the Court held that “taking note of the fact as petitioners are in-laws of opposite party no. 2, who are facing general and omnibus allegation qua alleged cruelty as committed upon opposite party no. 2, who appears prima facie living separately prior to the occurrence, accordingly, by taking reference of Abhishek case (supra), the impugned cognizance order …is hereby quashed”.

Accordingly, the Application of the Petitioners was allowed.

Cause Title: Rani Devi V. State of Bihar

Appearance: Advocate Prem Kumar

Petitioner: Advocate Ajay Kumar Jha represented Opposite Party No. 1 and Advocate Shrawan Kumar represented Opposite Party No. 2

Click here to read/download judgment


Patna High CourtJustice Chandra Shekhar Jha

Pridhi Chopra

    Pridhi Chopra was earlier practicing as an Advocate in Delhi. She pursued B.A. (H) English from Gargi College, University of Delhi, and subsequently pursued a degree in Law.