Relatives living separately, with no connection to the daily domestic affairs of a complainant wife, cannot be prosecuted on general and omnibus allegations of cruelty, the Patna High Court has held, quashing a cognizance order against two in-laws.
Patna: The Patna High Court has quashed the order taking cognizance for the alleged offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, and all consequential proceedings, against two relatives of a complainant wife, a brother-in-law and a “Nandosi,” in a complaint case pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sherghati, Gaya, holding that the allegations against them were general and omnibus [Najmul Hoda @ Najm Usmani and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr.].
Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha, sitting singly, allowed the petition filed under the Court’s inherent powers in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 22097 of 2019. The relief was granted only qua petitioner nos. 3 and 4.
The case
According to the complaint, the petitioners allegedly committed mental and physical cruelty on the complainant, the second opposite party, on account of non-fulfilment of a demand for dowry. These remain allegations, and the Court recorded that the complainant did not join the proceedings despite service of notice.
For the petitioners, it was argued that petitioner nos. 3 and 4 were the brother-in-law and the Nandosi of the complainant, lived separately, and were implicated only for being close relatives, with an oblique motive. The submission was that the case was one of malicious prosecution and misuse of Section 498A, as the allegations against them were very general and omnibus. The State opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioners, being in-laws, played an active role in the alleged cruelty by raising a demand of dowry.
Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083], reproducing its discussion of the contours of the power to quash criminal proceedings and the categories of cases in which such power may be exercised, including where the allegations, taken at face value, do not make out an offence and where a proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides.
Living separately, allegations omnibus
Applying those principles, the Court said:
“Upon perusal of record and submissions it appears that petitioners are brother-in-law and Nandosi, living separately, having no connection with daily and domestic affairs of O.P. No.2, where allegation of cruelty is also appearing very much general and omnibus against them.”
Order quashed qua petitioner nos. 3 and 4
Guided by Abhishek, the Court set aside the order taking cognizance, with all consequential proceedings, qua petitioner nos. 3 and 4 in Complaint Case No. 109 of 2017, and directed that the trial court records be returned to the learned trial court along with a copy of the judgment. The Court expressed no view on the merits of the complaint as against any other person, and the order is confined to the two petitioners.
Why The Patna High Court Judgment Matters
The ruling applies the Supreme Court’s caution against dragging distant relatives into matrimonial prosecutions, showing that separate residence and the absence of specific, individual allegations can be enough to quash cognizance under Section 498A.
Case Title: Najmul Hoda @ Najm Usmani @ Najjm Usman @ Nazmul Hoda and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. [Criminal Miscellaneous No. 22097 of 2019]
Bench: Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha, Patna High Court
Date of Judgment: October 5, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Kamal Kishore Singh for the Petitioners; APP Navin Kumar Pandey for the State