Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra sets aside order by A.C.J.M.-IV, Muzaffarpur

In Phuldeo Thakur & Anr. vs. State of Bihar & Anr.(2026), Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra of Patna High Court delivered a 11-page long judgement dated August 20, 2026, wherein, he concluded: "even if the allegations contained in the complaint petition and the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation are accepted in their entirety, the same do not disclose any specific role or overt act attributable to the present petitioners. The allegations of dowry demand and cruelty have been made collectively against the accused persons without specifying the individual conduct of the petitioners. Thus, the materials on record do not disclose the necessary factual foundation for proceeding against the petitioners under either Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code or Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of such criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 18. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.08.2018 passed by the learned A.C.J.M.-IV, Muzaffarpur in connection with Trial No.2887 of 2018 arising out of Complaint Case No.2700 of 2017, insofar as it relates to the present petitioners, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, stands quashed qua the present petitioners."

The High Court observed:" 14.The Supreme Court has consistently held that in matrimonial disputes, relatives of the husband cannot be prosecuted merely because their names have been mentioned in the complaint or because they are members of the husband’s family. Where the allegations against the relatives are general and omnibus and do not disclose their specific or active involvement in the alleged acts of cruelty or dowry harassment, continuation of criminal proceedings against such relatives amounts to abuse of the process of law. The Court has cautioned that the tendency to implicate all family members in matrimonial disputes must be curtailed and that there must be specific allegations indicating the individual role of the relative sought to be prosecuted. 

Justice Mishra observed:"The same principle is particularly applicable in the present case, where the petitioners are in-laws and the complaint does not attribute any specific overt act to either of them. Mere relationship with the husband, without a specific allegation of participation in dowry demand or cruelty, cannot constitute the ingredients of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of cases has reiterated that generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution against family members in matrimonial disputes. 

16. The principles governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. were authoritatively laid down in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors.,reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein the Supreme Court illustrated categories of cases in which the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law or otherwise secure the ends of justice. One such category is where the allegations made in the complaint or F.I.R., even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence against the accused. Another category covers cases where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could reach the conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.