IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5528 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1329 Year-2006 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1. Sweta Devi and Ors daughter of Rajendra Anand Sharma @ Neta Ji and Wife of Rajesh Sharma. 2. Kartik Anand @ Raj, Son of Rajendra Anand Sharma @ Neta Ji, 3. Hiramati Devi, wife of Rajendra Anand Sharma @ Neta Ji, All resident of Mohalla- Sharda Nand Bazar, P.S.- SiwanTown, District- Siwan. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Rekha Kumari, daughter of Sri Ram Janam Sharma and wife of Kunal Anand Sharma @ Prashant, resident of Mohalla- Sharda Nand Bazar, P.S. Siwan Town, District- Siwan, at present Nirala Nagar, Gaushala Road, P.S. Mithanpura, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, A.P.P. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raghav Prasad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 6 13-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2. 2. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.02.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Muzaffarpur, in Criminal Revision No. 231 of 2006, whereby the learned Revisional Court dismissed the criminal revision preferred by the petitioners and affirmed the order dated 14.08.2006 passed Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5528 of 2017(6) dt.13-08-2026 2/5 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, East Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No. 1329 of 2006, whereby cognizance has been taken under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and summons have been issued against the petitioners. The petitioners further seek quashing of the subsequent proceedings in Trial No. 1329 of 2016 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1329 of 2006, pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, East Muzaffarpur. 3. As per the prosecution case, the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with co-accused Kunal Anand Sharma @ Prashant in the year 2000. Thereafter, the complainant went to her matrimonial house. It has been alleged that a demand of dowry was made and upon non-fulfillment of the said demand, she was subjected to torture by all the accused persons, including the petitioners. It has further been alleged that the ornaments of the complainant were retained by the accused persons and she was ousted from her matrimonial house. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have entered into a compromise and a compromise petition has been filed before the Court below without any Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5528 of 2017(6) dt.13-08-2026 3/5 threat, coercion or false promise. It is further submitted that the complainant and her husband have reconciled their matrimonial differences and are residing together peacefully. It is also submitted that opposite party no. 2 had earlier instituted Complaint Case No. 1475 of 2008, which was also withdrawn on the basis of compromise. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are the married sister-in-law (Nanad), younger brother-in-law (Devar) and mother-in-law of the complainant and the allegations levelled against them are general, vague and omnibus in nature, without attribution of any specific overt act. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667; Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741; Rajesh Sharma & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472; and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the allegations under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the relatives are general, vague and omnibus in nature and no specific overt act is attributed to them, continuation of criminal Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5528 of 2017(6) dt.13-08-2026 4/5 proceedings against such relatives may amount to an abuse of the process of law. 6. It is further submitted that the dispute essentially arose between the complainant and her husband on account of matrimonial discord and that the allegations against the petitioners are general, vague and omnibus in nature, without any specific allegation or overt act attributable to them. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioners. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. Considering the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, which are vague, general and omnibus in nature, and having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083, as well as in Preeti Gupta & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law. This Court also takes note of the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise and the complainant and her husband have Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5528 of 2017(6) dt.13-08-2026 5/5 reconciled their matrimonial differences and are residing together peacefully. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the order taking cognizance dated 14.08.2006 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, East Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No. 1329 of 2006, as well as the revisional order dated 28.02.2007 passed in Criminal Revision No. 231 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Muzaffarpur, are hereby quashed, insofar as the present petitioners are concerned. 11. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed. Neha/- (Praveen Kumar, J) U T