Patna High Court
Bhuneshwari Devi @ Bhuvneshwari Devi vs The State Of Bihar Through The Home … on 6 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1277 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-312 Year-2022 Thana- PIRPAINTI District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
1. BHUNESHWARI DEVI @ BHUVNESHWARI DEVI W/o Late Janak
Bharti R/o Village- Gurua, P.S.- Gurua, Distt- Gaya.
2. Vijay Bharti S/o Late Janak Bharti R/o Village- Gurua, P.S.- Gurua, Distt-
Gaya.
3. Usha Giri W/o Chunnilal Giri R/o Sri Ram Vatika, Dhaiya, P.S.- Dhanbad,
Distt- Dhanbad.
4. Chunnilal Giri S/o Late Pannalal Giri R/o Sri Ram Vatika, Dhaiya, P.S.-
Dhanbad, Distt- Dhanbad.
5. Shobha Devi @ Shobha Puri W/o Vishwamitra Puri R/o Raghunathpur
Mathia, P.S.- Vikram, Distt- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna
Bihar
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna Bihar
3. The Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur Bihar
4. The Dub Divisional Police Officer, Kahalgaon Bihar
5. The Station House Officer, Pirpainti, Bhagalpur Bihar
6. Anjana Soni W/o Vijay Bharti and D/o Late Deo Narayan Mishra Resident
of H/o Sikander Singh, Surabhi Path, Near Shiv Mandir, New Jakkanpur,
P.S.- Gardanibagh, Distt- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Soni Srivastava, Advocate
Mr. Ravi Bhardwaj, Advocate
Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, SC 8
Mr. Anil Kumar, AC to SC 8
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to SC 8
For the Respondent no. 6 : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ravi Prakash Dwivedi, Advocate
Mr. Raushan Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-02-2025
The petitioners are the accused persons in connection
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1277 of 2022 dt.06-02-2025
2/21
with Pirpainti P.S. Case No. 312 of 2022 dated 21.09.2022
registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 307,
120B, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The informant/respondent No. 6 is the legally
wedded wife of the petitioner No. 2. Their marriage was
solemnized on 29.05.1996 according to Hindu rites and
ceremonies in Bhagalpur. After marriage, she went to her
matrimonial home at Gaya and then shifted to Patna, where her
husband has been working as an Advocate of Patna High Court.
In the wedlock between the parties, the respondent No. 6 gave
birth to one daughter and one son, who are now aged about 16
years and 10 years respectively.
3. It is alleged by the informant that her husband
is addicted to alcohol and under the influence of alcohol, he
used to misbehave with her. He often threatened her with dire
consequences and made her afraid by opening fire in air from
his licensed gun. The husband of the informant used to assault
her physically. He also mixed intoxicated drugs in a glass of
milk and compelled his wife to consume the said milk forcibly.
The informant narrated the said incidents to her maternal uncle,
however; to save her marriage and to protect her family’s
prestige, she ignored all those acts of cruelties. The informant
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1277 of 2022 dt.06-02-2025
3/21
also informed about the said incidents to her sister-in-law
(petitioner no. 3), brother-in-law (petitioner no. 4) and mother-
in-law (petitioner no. 1) that her husband demanded a sum of
Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) to be brought
from her maternal uncle for the purpose of purchasing a flat in
the name of her husband. Her maternal uncle failed to pay the
said money and thereafter, the husband of the informant
increased the level of cruelty upon his wife. It is also alleged
that her husband has illicit affairs with one Shobha Puri. At this,
the husband of the informant told petitioner no. 1, 3 and 4 to
take informant to his ancestral house at Gaya failing which he
would kill her. The petitioners no. 1, 3 and 4 brought the
informant to Gaya. The petitioner no. 1 again informed the
maternal uncle of the informant to give the informant’s husband
a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- as per his demand. When he expressed
his inability, petitioners no. 1 and 3 told her maternal uncle to
take the informant back to his house. The informant was taken
to the house of her maternal uncle along with her children.
Subsequently, the maternal uncle of the informant was
compelled to pay a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the husband of the
informant after selling one-third shares of the paternal property
of the informant. In this way, the informant was subjected to
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1277 of 2022 dt.06-02-2025
4/21
cruelty on illegal demand of dowry.
4. On the basis of the said FIR, Pirpainti PS
Case No. 312 of 2022 dated 21st September 2022, was registered
against the petitioners.
5. It is already stated that the petitioner no. 1 is
the mother-in-law, petitioner no. 2 is the husband, petitioner no.
3 and 4 are sister-in-law and elder brother-in-law respectively of
the informant and petitioner no. 5 is a distant matrimonial
relation, who stays at Raghunathpur Mathia within Police
Station Vikram in the District of Patna. It is submitted on behalf
of the petitioners that they are innocent, they did not commit
any offence and they have been falsely implicated in the present
case which is evident from the FIR. All the family members of
the petitioner no. 2 were wrongly implicated in a criminal case
on the basis of vague and omnibus allegation.
6. Ms. Soni Srivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the FIR was filed on 21st September
2022 and police after investigation filed charge-sheet against the
petitioners for all the offences as alleged except the offence
under Section 307 of the IPC. The trial court also took
cognizance of offence. In the instant writ petition, an
interlocutory application has been filed challenging the order of
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1277 of 2022 dt.06-02-2025
5/21
cognizance with a prayer to quash and set-aside the charge-sheet
and the cognizance order respectively on the following grounds: –
(i) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for
the petitioners that marriage of the petitioner no. 2 was
solemnized with the informant on 29th May 1996. The husband
of the informant (petitioner no. 2) made two informatory
petitions before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on
11th February 2020 and subsequently, in the same year bearing
no. 4039/2020 alleging the facts of torture and cruelty
perpetrated upon him by his wife and her relatives. He also
made application under Section 39 of the CrPC on 30th March
2022.
(ii) Subsequently, the petitioner no. 2 was
compelled to file a suit for divorce against his wife on the
ground of physical and mental cruelty. It is alleged that the
relation between the husband and wife became strained due to
the interference and indulgence by the maternal uncle of the
informant.
7. It is also stated by the learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner no. 2
filed a complaint case bearing no. 420 of 2022 against the
informant and others before the learned SDJM, Sherghati, Gaya
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1277 of 2022 dt.06-02-2025
6/21
of which the learning SDJM took cognizance of offence vide an
order dated 16th August 2022. Only after filing the divorce case
and the criminal case against the informant/respondent no. 6, an
FIR under section 498A and other cognate panel provisions
were made by the respondent no. 6 against the petitioners on 21st
September 2022.
8. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that the FIR made by the respondent no. 6
against the petitioners is full of absurdity, inherently
improbable, vague and omnibus. The FIR challenged in the
instant petition is an outcome as a retaliatory measure against
the matrimonial suit filed by the petitioner no. 2 against the
respondent no. 6. It is further submitted by Ms. Soni Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioners, that there is no specific
allegation against petitioner. no. 1 and petitioners no. 3-5. The
informant failed to state any date of alleged occurrence of
cruelty and torture perpetrated upon her. Referring to a decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Achin Gupta Vs.
State of Haryana and Anr. reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC
759, it is submitted by Ms. Soni Srivastava that the plain
reading of the FIR and Charge-sheet papers indicate that the
allegation levelled by the informant are quite vague, general and
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1277 of 2022 dt.06-02-2025
7/21
sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct. It is also
pertinent to note that in the FIR, no specific date or time of the
alleged offence has been disclosed. The investigating officer did
not find any allegation under Section 307 of the IPC and
dropped the said charge while submitting charge-sheet.
Therefore, relying on Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision, the
learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits
that the FIR lodged by the respondent no. 6 was nothing but a
counterblast to the divorce petition and the complaint case filed
by the petitioner no. 2 against his wife. Paragraph 21 and 22 of
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta
(Supra) are relevant and quoted below: –
“21. The investigation of
an offence is the field exclusively reserved
for the Police Officers, whose powers in that
field are unfettered, so long as the power to
investigate into the cognizable offence is
legitimately exercised in strict compliance
with the provisions under Chapter XII of
the Cr. P.C.. While exercising powers under
Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., the court does
not function as a Court of appeal or revision.
As noted above, the inherent jurisdiction
under the Section, although wide, yet should
be exercised sparingly, carefully and with
caution and only when such exercise is
justified by the tests specifically laid down in
the Section itself. It is to be exercised ex
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1277 of 2022 dt.06-02-2025
8/21debito justitiae to do real and substantial
justice for the administration of which alone
courts exist. The authority of the court exists
for advancement of justice and if any attempt
is made to abuse that authority so as to
produce injustice, the court has the power to
prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of
process of the court to allow any action
which would result in injustice and prevent
promotion of justice. In exercise of the
powers, the court would be justified to quash
any proceeding if it finds that the initiation
or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the
process of court or quashing of these
proceedings would otherwise serve the ends
of justice. When no offence is disclosed by
the complaint, the court may examine the
question of fact. When a complaint is sought
to be quashed, it is permissible to look into
the materials to assess what the complainant
has alleged and whether any offence is made
out even if the allegations are accepted in
toto.
22. Once the investigation
is over and chargesheet is filed, the FIR
pales into insignificance. The court,
thereafter, owes a duty to look into all the
materials collected by the investigating
agency in the form of chargesheet. There is
nothing in the words of Section 482 of the Cr.
P.C. which restricts the exercise of the power
of the court to prevent the abuse of process
of court or miscarriage of justice only to the
stage of the FIR. It would be a travesty of
justice to hold that the proceedings initiated
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1277 of 2022 dt.06-02-2025
9/21against a person can be interfered with at
the stage of FIR but not if it has materialized
into a chargesheet.”
9. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
the petitioners next refers to another decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar and Ors. Vs.
State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599. In the
aforesaid mentioned reported decision, the husband of the
informant and appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court filed
a criminal writ petition before this Court for quashing the FIR
dated 1st April 2019 which was dismissed by this Court. The
High Court observed that the averments made in the FIR, prima
facie disclosed commission of offence and, therefore, the matter
was required to be investigated by the police. The appellants
being the niece, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law
approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing the Special
Leave Petition, challenging the order passed by this Court. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 12 of the said judgment
refers to the observation made in Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs.
The State of U.P. and Anr. [reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472] as
hereunder: –
“14. Section 498-A was
inserted in the statute with the laudable
object of punishing cruelty at the hands of
husband or his relatives against a wife
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1277 of 2022 dt.06-02-2025
10/21particularly when such cruelty had potential
to result in suicide or murder of a woman as
mentioned in the Statement of Objects and
Reasons of Act 46 of 1983. The expression
“cruelty” in Section 498-A covers conduct
which may drive the women to commit
suicide or cause grave injury (mental or
physical) or danger to life or harassment
with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful
demand. [ Explanation to Section 498-A.] It
is a matter of serious concern that large
number of cases continue to be filed under
Section 498-A alleging harassment of
married women. We have already referred to
some of the statistics from the Crime Records
Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the
fact that most of such complaints are filed in
the heat of the moment over trivial issues.
Many of such complaints are not bona fide.
At the time of filing of the complaint,
implications and consequences are not
visualised. At times such complaints lead to
uncalled for harassment not only to the
accused but also to the complainant.
Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of
settlement.”
10. Subsequently, Hon’ble Supreme Court held
in its paragraphs no. 13 to 18 of Kahkashan Kausar and Ors.
(Supra) as under: –
“13. Previously, in the
landmark judgment of this Court in Arnesh
Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr., it was
observed:
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1277 of 2022 dt.06-02-2025
11/21
4. There is a phenomenal
increase in matrimonial disputes in recent
years. The institution of marriage is greatly
revered in this country. Section 498-A Indian
Penal Code was introduced with avowed
object to combat the menace of harassment
to a woman at the hands of her husband and
his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A
Indian Penal Code is a cognizable and non-
bailable offence has lent it a dubious place
of pride amongst the provisions that are used
as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled
wives. The simplest way to harass is to get
the husband and his relatives arrested under
this provision. In a quite number of cases,
bed-ridden grandfathers and grand-mothers
of the husbands, their sisters living abroad
for decades are arrested.
14. Further in Preeti
Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [Preeti
Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC
667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also
been observed : (SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-
36)
“32. It is a matter of
common experience that most of these
complaints under Section 498-AIPC are filed
in the heat of the moment over trivial issues
without proper deliberations. We come
across a large number of such complaints
which are not even bona fide and are filed
with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid
increase in the number of genuine cases of
dowry harassment is also a matter of serious
concern.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1277 of 2022 dt.06-02-2025
12/21
33. The learned members
of the Bar have enormous social
responsibility and obligation to ensure that
the social fibre of family life is not ruined or
demolished. They must ensure that
exaggerated versions of small incidents
should not be reflected in the criminal
complaints. Majority of the complaints are
filed either on their advice or with their
concurrence. The learned members of the
Bar who belong to a noble profession must
maintain its noble traditions and should treat
every complaint under Section 498-A as a
basic human problem and must make serious
endeavour to help the parties in arriving at
an amicable resolution of that human
problem. They must discharge their duties to
the best of their abilities to ensure that social
fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society
remains intact. The members of the Bar
should also ensure that one complaint should
not lead to multiple cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the
time of filing of the complaint the
implications and consequences are not
properly visualised by the complainant that
such complaint can lead to insurmountable
harassment, agony and pain to the
complainant, accused and his close
relations.
35. The ultimate object of
justice is to find out the truth and punish the
guilty and protect the innocent. To find out
the truth is a Herculean task in majority of
these complaints. The tendency of
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1277 of 2022 dt.06-02-2025
13/21
implicating the husband and all his
immediate relations is also not uncommon.
At times, even after the conclusion of the
criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the
real truth. 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. The allegations of
harassment of husband’s close relations who
had been living in different cities and never
visited or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided would have an entirely
different complexion. The allegations of the
complaint are required to be scrutinised with
great care and circumspection.
36. Experience reveals
that long and protracted criminal trials lead
to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the
relationship amongst the parties. It is also a
matter of common knowledge that in cases
filed by the complainant if the husband or
the husband’s relations had to remain in jail
even for a few days, it would ruin the
chances of an amicable settlement
altogether. The process of suffering is
extremely long and painful.”
15. In Geeta
Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [Geeta
Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC
741 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 212 : (2013) 1
SCC (Cri) 120] it was observed : (SCC p.
749, para 21)
“21. It would be relevant
at this stage to take note of an apt
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1277 of 2022 dt.06-02-2025
14/21
observation of this Court recorded in G.V.
Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V.
Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri)
733] wherein also in a matrimonial dispute,
this Court had held that the High Court
should have quashed the complaint arising
out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all
family members had been roped into the
matrimonial litigation which was quashed
and set aside. Their Lordships observed
therein with which we entirely agree that:
(SCC p. 698, para 12)
’12. … there has been an
outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent
times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the
main purpose of which is to enable the
young couple to settle down in life and live
peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes
suddenly erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in commission of
heinous crimes in which elders of the family
are also involved with the result that those
who could have counselled and brought
about rapprochement are rendered helpless
on their being arrayed as accused in the
criminal case. There are many other reasons
which need not be mentioned here for not
encouraging matrimonial litigation so that
the parties may ponder over their defaults
and terminate their disputes amicably by
mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in
a court of law where it takes years and years
to conclude and in that process the parties
lose their “young” days in chasing their
cases in different courts.’
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1277 of 2022 dt.06-02-2025
15/21The view taken by the
Judges in this matter was that the courts
would not encourage such disputes.”
16. Recently, in K. Subba
Rao v. State of Telangana [K. Subba
Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC
452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also
observed that : (SCC p. 454, para 6)
“6. … The courts should
be careful in proceeding against the distant
relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial
disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of
the husband should not be roped in on the
basis of omnibus allegations unless specific
instances of their involvement in the crime
are made out.”
17. The abovementioned
decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court
has at numerous instances expressed
concern over the misuse of Section 498-A
IPC and the increased tendency of
implicating relatives of the husband in
matrimonial disputes, without analysing the
long-term ramifications of a trial on the
complainant as well as the accused. It is
further manifest from the said judgments that
false implication by way of general omnibus
allegations made in the course of
matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would
result in misuse of the process of law.
Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments
has warned the courts from proceeding
against the relatives and in-laws of the
husband when no prima facie case is made
out against them.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1277 of 2022 dt.06-02-2025
16/21
18. Coming to the facts of
this case, upon a perusal of the contents of
the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that
general allegations are levelled against the
appellants. The complainant alleged that
“all accused harassed her mentally and
threatened her of terminating her
pregnancy”. Furthermore, no specific and
distinct allegations have been made against
either of the appellants herein i.e. none of
the appellants have been attributed any
specific role in furtherance of the general
allegations made against them. This simply
leads to a situation wherein one fails to
ascertain the role played by each accused in
furtherance of the offence. The allegations
are, therefore, general and omnibus and can
at best be said to have been made out on
account of small skirmishes. Insofar as
husband is concerned, since he has not
appealed against the order of the High
Court, we have not examined the veracity of
allegations made against him. However, as
far as the appellants are concerned, the
allegations made against them being general
and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.”
11. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
the respondent no. 6, on the other hand, has placed the contents
of the FIR. It is submitted by him that the marriage of the
informant was arranged by her maternal uncle, Vibhuti Prasad
Goswami with the petitioner no. 2. The petitioner no. 2 is a
practicing advocate of Patna High Court. After marriage, the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1277 of 2022 dt.06-02-2025
17/21
parties were blessed with two children who are aged about 16
years and 10 years on the date of filing of the complaint. It is
alleged by the informant that her husband subsequently started
to mix with bad associations and addicted to alcohol. When the
informant requested him to leave such addiction, he abused her.
He also threatened her to kill by firing. He regularly used to
assault the informant, i.e., his wife. He used to mix some
intoxicated drugs in the milk of the informant to cause her
physical illness. She informed the matter to her maternal uncle
but he consoled her. She also informed the incidents to her
mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law who took her
with them to his ancestral house. Petitioner no. 3 advised her to
tell her maternal uncle to pay Rs. 25,00,000/- to her husband.
The other accused persons also persuaded her to pay the said
amount. Her husband told that if the informant wanted to live at
her matrimonial home, she would have to bring money from her
maternal uncle.
12. Thus, it is submitted by the learned Advocate
for the respondent no. 6 that the statement made by the
informant contains an allegation that her husband demanded
huge dowry of Rs. 25,00,000/- from her maternal uncle and on
her failure to do so, she was subjected to cruelty.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1277 of 2022 dt.06-02-2025
18/21
13. Having heard the learned counsels for the
parties and on careful perusal of the entire materials on record,
specially the FIR, it is found that the informant failed to state
any date of occurrence when her husband demanded money.
The marriage between the petitioner no. 2 and respondent no. 6
lasted for 25 years. They have two children who are aged about
16 years and 10 years now. They are being maintained by their
father. Prior to 16th August 2022, the respondent no. 6 did not
make any allegation against the petitioners about illegal
demands of money. No information was filed before the Court
of the learned Magistrate or the police authority about such
incidents. The allegations made against the petitioners no. 1, 3,
4 and 5 are absolutely vague and omnibus. The petitioner no. 1
is now aged about 84 years, she is suffering from various
ailments, it is not physically possible for her to treat the
respondent no. 6 with cruelty. There is absolutely no allegation
against petitioner no. 4, Chunnilal Giri and petitioner no. 5,
namely, Shobha Devi @ Sobha Puri. In the FIR, it is alleged that
when petitioners no. 1, 3, and 4 (in the instant writ petition)
came to Patna to resolve the matrimonial dispute between the
parties, petitioner no. 3 advised the informant to concede to the
demand of her husband (petitioner no. 2, herein) to fetch a
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1277 of 2022 dt.06-02-2025
19/21
peaceful family life. This advice acceding the claim of the
husband may not be proper but such an advice cannot be treated
as cruelty under the facts and circumstances of the case, when it
was told. It is stated in the FIR itself that seeing the petitioners,
respondent no. 6 started to cry relentlessly. Under such
circumstances, petitioner no. 3 might have made certain remark
to bring peace in the family of petitioner no. 2 and respondent
no. 6. In the considered view of this Court, such statement is not
a demand for illegal dowry or cruelty perpetrated by them in the
instant case.
14. It is contended on behalf of the respondent
no. 6 that in the meantime, the investigating officer has also
filed charge-sheet and cognizance has been taken. At this state,
FIR does not have any bearing in the criminal case and by
quashing the FIR, criminal case cannot be quashed.
15. In reply to the said submission, Ms. Soni
Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, refers to
paragraph 22 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Achin Gupta (supra) when charge-sheet is filed, off-course, the
FIR pales into a no sequence. However, the Court under Article
226 or Section 482 of the CrPC holds responsibility to look into
all the materials collected by the investigating agency in the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1277 of 2022 dt.06-02-2025
20/21
form of charge-sheet. There is no restriction in the exercise of
power under Article 226 of the Constitution to consider whether
a perfunctory charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners
which would ultimately lead to miscarriage of justice. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held;- “It would be a travesty of
justice to held that the proceedings instituted against a person
can be interfered at the stage of FIR but not if it has materialized
into charge-sheet.”
16. On careful perusal of the materials on
record, this Court finds that the investigating officer failed to
collect any legal evidence, which on appreciation may support
the accusation. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on
some general and sweeping allegation without bringing on
record any specific instance of criminal conduct, it is nothing
but abuse of the process of the Court. The Court owes a duty to
subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough
scrutiny to find out, prima facie whether there is any grain of
truth in the allegations or whether they are made only on the
sole object of involving certain individuals in criminal charge,
more particularly, when a prosecution arises from a marital
dispute.
17. In the instant case, continuation of the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1277 of 2022 dt.06-02-2025
21/21
proceeding against petitioners no. 1, 3, 4 and 5 will be abuse of
the process of Court. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that
the criminal charge-sheet in Pirpainti P.S. Case No 312 of 2022
under Sections 341/323/498(A)/120(B)/504/506 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and order of cognizance dated 18.03.2024 is
liable to be quashed. However, the materials on record, mainly,
the applications filed by the petitioner no. 2 for institution of
suit of divorce and subsequent complaint of cruelty on demand
of a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- by the respondent no. 6 shall
continue against the petitioner no. 2.
18. With the above order, the instant writ
petition is disposed of.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
Suraj Dubey/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 10.02.2025 Transmission Date 10.02.2025
[ad_1]
Source link