Patna High Court – Orders
Mintu Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 26 June, 2025
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40696 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2015 Thana- RUPASPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Mintu Kumari D/O Sri Surendra Singh Resident of village- Kansara, P.S.-
Karpi, District- Arwal
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Usha Kumari Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 26-06-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing
the order dated 13.06.2022 in Rupaspur P.S. Case No. 70 of
2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Danapur by
which the discharge application under Section 239 of the
Cr. P.C. has been rejected.
3. The brief facts relevant for the present application
is that on 20.03.2015, the informant-Sindhu Kumari lodged a
written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge, Rupaspur,
alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of one Ashutosh
Kumar, and that her marriage to the aforesaid Ashutosh Kumar
was solemnized on 27.02.2009. It is further stated that the
couple has a daughter named Anushka, who was born on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40696 of 2022(2) dt.26-06-2025
2/8
21.02.2010, and was about five years old at the time of filing the
complaint. The informant thereafter states that her husband,
Ashutosh Kumar, was initially posted as Programme Officer
(MGNREGA) at Shahpur Block, Bhojpur District, and later was
transferred to Muzaffarpur. The informant alleges that her
husband along with his mother Usha Devi and sisters Juli
Kumari and Nidhi Kumari, subjected her to constant threats
regarding second marriage of her husband. It is also alleged that
due to the continued harassment, the informant was forced out
of her matrimonial home and is now living with her parents in
Ram Jaipal Nagar, Rupaspur.
4. The informant thereafter alleges that on
18.03.2015, her father discovered that Ashutosh Kumar had
allegedly entered into a second illegal marriage with one Mintu
Kumari, petitioner herein, on 02.12.2014 at Hanumangarhi
Ashram, Mahuli, District Bhojpur. The family members of the
informant procured the marriage receipt and register from the
aforesaid ashram where the alleged second marriage was
solemnized. The informant furthermore alleges that the second
illegal marriage was carried out with the support of her mother-
in-law Usha Devi, father-in-law Bachcha Sharma and one
Nagendra Kumar who is the Mausa (uncle) of Mintu Kumari,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40696 of 2022(2) dt.26-06-2025
3/8
and is currently posted as an assistant teacher at Middle School,
Saraiya, Barhara Block, Bhojpur. It is stated that both Mintu
Kumari and Nagendra Kumar reside in Ara at the house of one
Anup Singh.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the allegations made against the petitioner are false and
fabricated and that no such occurrence of marriage has taken
place. The learned counsel for the petitioner had pointed that
initially the F.I.R was lodged under sections 494 read with
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, however during the
investigation the I.O. of the case had added section 498-A of
Indian Penal Code as well and has accordingly submitted the
charge-sheet, based on which the magistrate took cognizance
against the petitioner and other co-accused persons.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter
submits that the petitioner had preferred a discharge petition
under section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which
was rejected by the Magistrate vide order dated 13.06.2022
without properly appreciating the law and facts at hand.
Subsequently, the Petitioner had thereafter preferred a revision
petitioner before the Learned Sessions Judge, Patna wherein
vide order dated 17.10.2017, the matter was remanded back to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40696 of 2022(2) dt.26-06-2025
4/8
the court to pass a reasoned order. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that from the perusal of the even the latter
order shows that it was again rejected which was again
unreasoned.
7. Furthermore, it was submitted that the allegation of
the informant that the Petitioner got married with the co accused
Ashutosh Kumar and the same is strongly denied.
8. Moreover, it was submitted by on behalf of the
petitioner that from the complaint petition, it is apparent that the
informant has not resided at her matrimonial home since 2012
and that the present F.IR was lodged on 20-03-2015 which is
clearly an afterthought. The learned counsel submits that it is
evident from perusal of the F.I.R that no prima facie case is
made out against the petitioner under section 494, 498(A) read
with 34 of Indian Penal Code and the issuance of processes
against the petitioner is a misuse of the process of law.
9. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the rigors of section as charged would not be
attracted against the petitioner being the wife of the Ashutosh
Kumar. It is specifically contented by the earned counsel for the
petitioner that section 498-A are only applicable against the
husband or the family members of the husband of the victim.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40696 of 2022(2) dt.26-06-2025
5/8
10. It was also submitted that from perusal of the F.I.R
it transpires that the complainant has roped-in all the relatives of
the husband with ulterior motive and malafide intention which
should not be encouraged as the law is also squarely settled by
this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
11. The learned counsel has vehemently argued that
the allegations made against the petitioner in the F.I.R are totally
bald, concocted and malicious with not even a shred of evidence
and therefore, its continuance would be travesty of justice.
12. I have heard the parties and perused the materials
available on record.
13. It has been alleged that the petitioner is the second
wife and is accused of torturing the complainant/ informant.
The petitioner denies the marriage and submits that she is not
the second wife.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, reported as (2023) 17
SCC 688 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294
10. It is settled principle of law that
at the stage of considering an application for
discharge the court must proceed on an
assumption that the material which has been
brought on record by the prosecution is true
and evaluate said material in order to
determine whether the facts emerging from the
material taken on its face value, disclose the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40696 of 2022(2) dt.26-06-2025
6/8
existence of the ingredients necessary of the
offence alleged.
11. This Court in State of T.N. v. N.
Suresh Rajan [State of T.N. v. N. Suresh
Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 : (2014) 3 SCC
(Cri) 529 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 721]
adverting to the earlier propositions of law
laid down on this subject has held : (SCC pp.
721-22, para 29)”29. We have bestowed our
consideration to the rival submissions and the
submissions made by Mr Ranjit Kumar
commend us. True it is that at the time of
consideration of the applications for
discharge, the court cannot act as a
mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a post
office and may sift evidence in order to find
out whether or not the allegations made are
groundless so as to pass an order of
discharge. It is trite that at the stage of
consideration of an application for discharge,
the court has to proceed with an assumption
that the materials brought on record by the
prosecution are true and evaluate the said
materials and documents with a view to find
out whether the facts emerging therefrom
taken at their face value disclose the existence
of all the ingredients constituting the alleged
offence. At this stage, probative value of the
materials has to be gone into and the court is
not expected to go deep into the matter and
hold that the materials would not warrant a
conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be
considered is whether there is a ground for
presuming that the offence has been
committed and not whether a ground for
convicting the accused has been made out. To
put it differently, if the court thinks that the
accused might have committed the offence on
the basis of the materials on record on its
probative value, it can frame the charge;
though for conviction, the court has to come
to the conclusion that the accused has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40696 of 2022(2) dt.26-06-2025
7/8
committed the offence. The law does not
permit a mini trial at this stage.
12. The defence of the accused is
not to be looked into at the stage when the
accused seeks to be discharged. The
expression “the record of the case” used in
Section 227CrPC is to be understood as the
documents and articles, if any, produced by
the prosecution. The Code does not give any
right to the accused to produce any document
at the stage of framing of the charge. The
submission of the accused is to be confined to
the material produced by the investigating
agency.
13. The primary consideration at
the stage of framing of charge is the test of
existence of a prima facie case, and at this
stage, the probative value of materials on
record need not be gone into. This Court by
referring to its earlier decisions in State of
Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa [State of
Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4
SCC 659 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 820] and State of
M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni [State of M.P. v.
Mohanlal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338 : 2000 SCC
(Cri) 1110] has held the nature of evaluation
to be made by the court at the stage of
framing of the charge is to test the existence of
prima facie case. It is also held at the stage of
framing of charge, the court has to form a
presumptive opinion to the existence of factual
ingredients constituting the offence alleged
and it is not expected to go deep into
probative value of the material on record and
to check whether the material on record
would certainly lead to conviction at the
conclusion of trial.
15. Therefore it is settled law that at the stage of
discharge, the defence of the petitioner cannot be considered.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40696 of 2022(2) dt.26-06-2025
8/8
16. The Court below has found a prima facie case for
trial and it would be improper for this Court to conduct a mini-
trial to ascertain the veracity of the disputed facts.
17. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T