Patna High Court
Mithilesh Chandra Deo @ Mithilesh … vs The State Of Bihar on 11 April, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 14825 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1187 Year-2022 Thana- KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Katihar
======================================================
Mithilesh Chandra Deo @ Mithilesh Chandra Dev Son of Pramod Keshri R/o
vill - Murhan, Near Kali Asthan, P.S. - Sabaur (Goradih), Distt. - Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Aakanksha Keshri @ Aakanksha Kumari D/o Rajesh Keshri R/o vill - Sabda
Pothia, P.S. - Falka, Distt. - Katihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Swapnil Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Raj Kishor Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 11-04-2025
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the parties.
2. Present petition is being filed on behalf of the
petitioner for quashing of entire proceeding including
order dated 03.11.2023 initiated under Complaint Case
1187 of 2022 whereby and where under Ld. C.J.M
Katihar directed O.P no.2 to reside separately but with
harassing approach the petitioner again implicated by O.P
no. 2 through instant complaint case as lodged under
section 12 of the protection of women from domestic
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 14825 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
2/10
violence Act 2005.
3. That the prosecution case as alleged through
complaint is that O.P no.2 is the married wife of the
petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on
22.04.2019
and on said occasion dowry of Rs. 25 lakh
was paid to the petitioner. Thereafter, the O.P no.2 joined
her matrimonial home on 23.04.2019, where petitioner
and his father misbehaved with her. It is further alleged
that during stay at matrimonial home the petitioner never
established sexual relation with O.P. No. 2 and thus she
was put in extreme mental and physical cruelty. It is
further alleged that petitioner and other family members
further demanded dowry of Rs 10 lakh from the parents
of O.P. No. 2, which upon refusal, O.P no. 2 was not only
assaulted but also abused. Thereafter, O.P no.2 went to
Moran (place of posting of petitioner), where the
petitioner at the instance of the family members caused
miscarriage of O.P. No. 2 due to which she was
hospitalized. Besides that, at her service place, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 14825 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
3/10
petitioner also given a knife blow on her hand, mark of
which is still visible. It is further stated that the O.P. No. 2
was under the impression that good sense would prevail,
but the behavior of the petitioner and in-laws did not
change. Thereafter, the O.P. No. 2 made a complaint
before the police at Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra, Purnea,
where the petitioner become ready to take her to his place
of posting on 06.09.2021 at Assam but on 21.09.2021,
she was given some medicine due to which her pregnancy
was terminated. She any how managed to come back to
her aunts house. Thereafter, she lodged a complaint case
no. 1253 of 2021 before the court of Ld. C.J.M Katihar,
who transfer the matter to the Ld. S.D.J.M Katihar, for
inquiry and trial.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that matter appears compromised between the
parties against the permanent alimony of Rs.
27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakh). In this
context, it is submitted that parties also dissolved their
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 14825 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
4/10
marriage by way of mutual consent through Matrimonial
Suit No. 324 of 2024 dated 12.12.2024, where by the
judgment of learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Katihar, the marriage between the parties declared
dissolved. It is submitted that from the said judgment it
transpires that O.P. No. 2 already received permanent
alimony of Rs. 27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakh)
and in aforesaid fact, continuing of the present
proceedings before court below would only amount to
abuse of the process of the Court of law and, therefore,
same be quashed/set aside. In support of his submission
learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble
Supreme Court as available through Abhishek vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh as reported in 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 1083.
5. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 also
supported the argument as advanced by learned counsel
for petitioner that the parties resolved their dispute and
differences, amicably.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 14825 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
5/10
6. In view of aforesaid, it would be apposite to
reproduce Paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 14 ,15, 16 & 17 of
Abhishek case (supra), which read as:-
12. The contours of the power to quash
criminal proceedings under Section 482
Cr.P.C. are well defined. In V. Ravi Kumar v.
State represented by Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu
[(2019) 14 SCC 568], this Court affirmed that
where an accused seeks quashing of the FIR,
invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High
Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High
Court to enter into the factual arena to
adjudge the correctness of the allegations in
the complaint. In Neeharika Infrastructure (P).
Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal
No. 330 of 2021, decided on 13.04.2021], a
3-Judge Bench of this Court elaborately
considered the scope and extent of the power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was observed
that the power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly, with circumspection and in the
rarest of rare cases, such standard not being
confused with the norm formulated in the
context of the death penalty. It was further
observed that while examining the
FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought,
the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of
the allegations made therein, but if the Court
thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters
of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by
law, and more particularly, the parameters laid
down by this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of
Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) and State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC
335], the Court would have jurisdiction to
quash the FIR/complaint.
13. Instances of a husband’s family members
filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 14825 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
6/10
launched against them by his wife in the midst
of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor
of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on
this score. We may now take note of some
decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in
Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of
Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had
occasion to deal with a similar situation where
the High Court had refused to quash a FIR
registered for various offences, including
Section 498A IPC. Noting that the foremost
issue that required determination was whether
allegations made against the in-laws were
general omnibus allegations which would be
liable to be quashed, this Court referred to
earlier decisions wherein 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. On the facts of
that case, it was found that no specific
allegations were made against the in-laws by
the wife and it was held that allowing their
prosecution in the absence of clear allegations
against the in-laws would result in an abuse of
the process of law. It was also noted that a
criminal trial, leading to an eventual acquittal,
would inflict severe scars upon the accused
and such an exercise ought to be discouraged.
14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand
[(2010) 7 SCC 667], this Court noted that the
tendency to implicate the husband and all his
immediate relations is also not uncommon in
complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It
was observed that 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, as allegations of
harassment by husband’s close relations, who
were living in different cities and never visited
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 14825 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
7/10
or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided, would add an entirely
different complexion and such allegations
would have to be scrutinised with great care
and circumspection.
15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti [(2009)
10 SCC 184], this Court observed that the
mere mention of statutory provisions and the
language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is
not the ‘be all and end all’ of the matter, as
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. These
observations were made in the context of a
matrimonial dispute involving Section 498A
IPC.
16. Of more recent origin is the decision of
this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023, decided
on 08.08.2023) on the legal principles
applicable apropos Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Therein, it was observed that when an accused
comes before the High Court, invoking either
the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the
criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on
the ground that such proceedings are
manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted
with the ulterior motive of wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances, the
High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR
with care and a little more closely. It was
further observed that it will not be enough for
the Court to look into the averments made in
the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients
to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed
or not as, in frivolous or vexatious
proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into
many other attending circumstances emerging
from the record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 14825 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
8/10
circumspection, to try and read between the
lines.
17. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court had set
out, by way of illustration, the broad categories
of cases in which the inherent power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised. Para
102 of the decision reads as follows:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of
the various relevant provisions of the Code
under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we give the following categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein such
power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice, though it may not
be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to
give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and accepted
in their entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first informant
report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 14825 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
9/10constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation
is permitted by a police officer without an order
of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
persons can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code
or the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress
for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.”
7. In view of aforesaid factual and legal submissions
as parties resolved their disputes and differences amicably,
where their marriage stands dissolved under mutual consent,
in view of Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 against
the permanent alimony of Rs. 27,00,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Seven Lakh), which appears already received by
O.P. No. 2, accordingly, by taking a guiding legal note of
Abhishek case (supra), the entire proceeding including
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 14825 of 2024 dt.11-04-2025
10/10
order dated 03.11.2023 arising out of Complaint Case
1187 of 2022 as passed learned S.D.J.M, Katihar is
hereby quashed/ set aside qua petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.
9. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the
learned trial court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 15.04.2025 Transmission Date 15.04.2025