Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53430 of 2016 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2014 Thana- MADHAURAH District- Saran ======================================================
1. Kajal Kumari, Daughter of Teras Sah;
2. Sita Devi, Wife of Bishwanath Sah;
3. Sanjeet Kumar Sah @ Sanjeeb Kumar Sah @ Sanjeet Sha @ Sanjeet Kumar Sah, S/o Bishwanath Sah;
4. Bishwanath Sah, Son of late Yadu Sah; All are resident of Village- Ihshrauli, P.S.- Marhowrah, District- Saran. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sanju Devi, Wife of Sanjeet Sah, Resident of Village- Ishrauli, P.S.- Marhowrah, District- Saran. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH C.A.V. JUDGMENT Date : 19-08-2026 Impugning the order dated 21.06.2016 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chapra at Saran (in short the S.D.J.M., Chapra at Saran) in Trial No. 2069 of 2016, arising out of Marhowrrah P.S. Case No. 102 of 2014, whereby the application filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Cr.P.C.) for discharging the accused persons (the petitioners herein) has been rejected, the petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking quashment of the same. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53430 of 2016 dt.19-08-2026 2/12
2. At the very outset, leaned counsel for the petitioners points out that out of total four petitioners, now he is pressing this application only on behalf of petitioner No. 1, i.e., Kajal Kumari, D/o Teras Sah, who happens to be the cousin sister-in-law of the informant, since the other three petitioners, namely, petitioner No. 2/Sita Devi (mother-in-law), petitioner No. 3/Sanjeet Kumar Sah @ Sanjeet Sha @ Sanjeet Kumar Sha @ Sanjeeb Kumar Sah (husband) and petitioner No. 4/Bishwanath Sah (father-in-law) have died during pendency of this application and the instant application has become infructuous with respect to them. 3. In view of the aforesaid submission, the instant application with respect to above-named petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is dismissed as having become infructuous. 4. Mr.
Mukesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant/opposite party No. 2, namely, Sanju Devi, had filed the First Information Report, bearing Marhowrrah P.S. Case No. 102 of 2014, dated 25.04.2014, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 506 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the IPC), implicating seven persons of her matrimonial home as accused. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53430 of 2016 dt.19-08-2026 3/12
5. In the aforesaid F.I.R., it has been alleged that all the seven accused persons, as named therein, variously assaulted the informant/opposite party No. 2 and on 25.04.2014, while she had gone to Chapra Civil Court with her husband to attend the Court proceedings, her husband fled away leaving her in the Court itself. Thereafter, she approached Mahila Helpline, where she was suggested to go to Marhowrrah Thana, but she returned to her matrimonial home (Sasural), where all the accused persons, as named, started abusing and assaulting her and her nephew. 6. Levelling these allegations, she filed a written report in Marhowrrah Police Station, whereafter Marhowrrah P.S. Case No. 102 of 2014, dated 25.04.2014, for the offences under Sections 498(A), 323, 506 and 379 of the I.P.C. was registered. Thereafter, police commenced investigation into the matter and after thorough investigation, submitted charge-sheet against four accused persons (the petitioners herein) and did not sent up other accused persons, namely, Chathiya Devi, Moti Kumari and Rani Kumari, out of the seven F.I.R. named accused persons, finding them innocent. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further asserts that prior to the present F.I.R., the informant/opposite party No.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53430 of 2016 dt.19-08-2026 4/12 2 had already filed a complaint case in the year 2011 itself, bearing Complaint Case No. 1980 of 2011, implicating all the persons of her matrimonial home as accused, in which, the learned Court, on enquiry, finding prima facie case only against Sanjeet Kumar Sah (the husband), vide order dated 17.04.2013, issued processes for his appearance to face the trial. The said complaint case is still pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class, Chapra at Saran vide Trial No. 2993 of
2013. 8.
It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the case, at hand, there is absolutely no allegation at all of any nature especially of torturing against petitioner No. 1, namely, Kajal Kumari, who is cousin sister-in- law of the husband of the informant/opposite party No. 2, having no concern, at all, with the matrimonial life of the informant/opposite party No. 2 and her in-laws, but she has only been roped in this case on account of the mischievous design of the informant/opposite party No. 2, wherein just in order to put undue pressure on her in-laws including the husband, she has deliberately implicated the present petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that earlier the petitioners and others have approached this Court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53430 of 2016 dt.19-08-2026 5/12 for quashing the order taking cognizance vide Cr. Misc. No. 17111 of 2015, which was disposed of by order dated 23.04.2015, giving liberty to the petitioners therein including the present petitioner, to raise all the points available, at the stage of framing of charge, whereafter the petitioners filed an application before the learned Trial Court under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for discharging them from the present case on account of paucity of evidence and materials against them, which could justify their facing the rigours of trial. 10. The discharge application, so preferred by the petitioner(s), was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Chapra at Saran vide order dated 21.06.2016 and the same was challenged in the present application, wherein, while issuing notice to the informant/opposite party No. 2 vide order dated 06.09.2017, this Court has also called for the legible copy of the case diary and stayed the further proceedings of Marhowrrah P.S. Case No. 102 of 2014 corresponding to Trial No. 2069 of 2016, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Chapra at Saran, only with respect to petitioner No. 1. 11. While concluding his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution, now only with respect to petitioner No. 1, namely, Kajal Kumari, would
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53430 of 2016 dt.19-08-2026 6/12 amount to gross misuse of judicial proceedings as there has absolutely been no allegation, at all, against her.
He also submits that the informant/opposite party No. 2, in-spite of valid service of notice upon her and despite an advocate having put his appearance on her behalf, chose not to appear in this case, repeatedly on various dates, which shows the casual approach of the informant/opposite party No. 2 and it also reflects her true intent of persecuting and harassing the petitioner only for the sake of her being relative of the husband of the informant/opposite party No. 2. 12. From the order-sheets of the present case, it appears that notices have been issued upon the informant/opposite party No. 2 and the same has validly been served upon her and an advocate has already put his/her appearance on her behalf, but in-spite of the same, none appeared on behalf of the informant/opposite party No. 2 to contest the case, which evinces that she has lost her interest in pursuing this matter. 13. Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State fairly argues that in the F.I.R., there has absolutely been no allegation against petitioner No. 1 and even in the case diary, no evidence has surfaced connecting
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53430 of 2016 dt.19-08-2026 7/12 the petitioner to the crime as alleged by the informant/opposite party No. 2. He also submits that the present F.I.R. seems to be an offshoot of the earlier complaint lodged by the informant/opposite party No. 2, in which, her husband had only been summoned to face the trial. Now during the pendency of both the cases filed by the informant/opposite party No. 2, viz., Complaint Case No. 1980 of 2011 and the present F.I.R., the husband, mother-in-law and the father-in-law, as evident from the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, have passed away, hence, the cases against them (petitioner Nos. 2, 3 & 4) have abated. 14.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State besides the documents brought on record by way of Annexures as also perused the case diary, which has been called for, in this matter and received through Letter No. 734 dated 19.12.2017. 15. In the F.I.R., the only specific allegation levelled against the husband (now the deceased) was that on 25.04.2014, while both, viz., the husband and the informant/opposite party No. 2, had gone to attend the Court proceedings, the husband leaving the informant/opposite party No. 2 in the Court premises, fled away and, thereafter, when she
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53430 of 2016 dt.19-08-2026 8/12 returned to her matrimonial home, she was variously assaulted. Except these bald, general and sweeping allegations, no specific role has been assigned to any of the accused persons. The petitioner seems to have been implicated in this case only on account of her being cousin of the husband of the informant/opposite party No. 2. 16. From the perusal of the documents brought on record, it appears that earlier a complaint case vide Complaint Case No. 1980 of 2011 was also filed by the informant/opposite party No. 2 in the year 2011 itself, in which, all the family members of her husband including the father and the mother of the present petitioner, namely, Kajal Kumari, were implicated and the learned Court finding prima facie case only against the husband, summoned him to face the trial. Further, in course of investigation, police in the case diary has recorded the statement of only the independent witnesses in paragraphs - 6, 7, 8 & 9, wherein they all have virtually stated verbatim the same allegation as levelled against all the family members of the husband of the informant/opposite party No. 2 and even from the statement of those witnesses, as recorded by the police in course of investigation, it emerges that nothing specific has been alleged against the petitioner except general and omnibus
Patna High Court CR. MISC.
MISC. No.53430 of 2016 dt.19-08-2026 9/12 allegations of sweeping nature and all those independent witnesses have stated, as if, they were the eye-witnesses to the occurrence right from the Court from where the husband of the informant/opposite party No. 2 had fled away, leaving her in the lurch and till the informant/opposite party No. 2 return to her matrimonial home, where she was allegedly thrashed and abused by her in-laws. 17. Considering the absence of any kind of specific allegation attributing any specific role of committing any crime to the petitioner against the informant/opposite party No. 2, the continuance of the present prosecution against the petitioner, in the backdrop of death of all the primary members of the matrimonial home of the informant/opposite party No. 2 including the husband, mother-in-law and the father-in-law, would not only amounts to abuse of the process of the Court but would also amount to miscarriage of justice, where the cousin sister-in-law, in the absence of any specific allegation of committing any crime, has sought to be prosecuted for an offence under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C., wherein there is no such allegation of any demand of dowry against her and for non-fulfillment of the same, torturous act was meted out to the informant/opposite party No. 2. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53430 of 2016 dt.19-08-2026 10/12
18. The present F.I.R., baring Marhowrrah P.S. Case No. 102 of 2014, has been lodged for the offences under Sections 498(A), 323, 506 and 379 of the I.P.C.
19. In view of the nature of allegations as levelled in the F.I.R., no offence under Sections 498(A) and 379 of the I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner and so far as the allegations for the offences under Sections 323 and 506 of the I.P.C. in the present case are concerned, in the absence of any specific allegation coupled with absence of evidence in this regard, the prosecution of petitioner under the aforesaid sections of the I.P.C. is not only unwarranted but is against the canons of justice, which has been settled by catena of judicial pronouncements. 20.
20. It has been seen that there is a growing trend to implicate the relatives and the family members of the husband, just in order to put undue pressure on him, to come to the terms of such estranged wife and they have found the simplest way to harass the husband, is to get him or his relatives or his family members, implicated and arrested under the provisions of law. 21. Considering such trend in the mindset of the complainant/informant, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned the High Courts and the Trial Courts to be very
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53430 of 2016 dt.19-08-2026 11/12 careful while analyzing and scrutinizing the evidence where the in-laws, family members and the relatives of the husband have been sought to be implicated. 22. In the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 as well as in the case of Arti Mehta & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 933, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in no uncertain terms that the Court should be very careful and punctilious in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and must keep in mind that relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations; unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that while anguish of a complainant in a failed marriage, cannot be lightly disregarded, equally, criminal law cannot be permitted to be set in motion against every relative of the husband merely on the basis of generalized and omnibus allegations lacking specific factual foundations. Thus, the Courts are required to exercise greater caution and carefulness in scrutinizing the evidence against each of the relatives of the husband. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53430 of 2016 dt.19-08-2026 12/12
24. In the conspectus of the aforesaid factual legal discussions made hereinabove, the instant prosecution against the petitioner, who is the cousin of late husband of the informant/opposite party No. 2, cannot be allowed to be continued as its continuance would not only tantamount to abuse of the process of law, but, ultimately, will lead to miscarriage of justice. 25.
Accordingly, the order dated 21.06.2016, rejecting the application for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C., passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Chapra at Saran in connection with Trial No. 2069 of 2016, arising out of Marhowrrah P.S. Case No. 102 of 2014, is, hereby, quashed and set aside and all the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom being Marhowrrah P.S. Case No. 102 of 2014 qua the present petitioner, namely, Kajal Kumari, is also quashed and set aside. 26. The interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed off accordingly. Rakesh/Praveen-II (Rana Vikram Singh, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 31.07.2026 Uploading Date 20.08.2026 Transmission Date 20.08.2026