Patna High Court
Chandan Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 4 March, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6051 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-111 Year-2019 Thana- PARSABAZAR District- Patna
======================================================
CHANDAN KUMAR Son of Late Raj Kishor Prasad Resident of
Village - Chandan Palace, New Etwarpur Parsa, P.s.- Parsa Bazar in the
Distt. of Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anju Kumari @ Payal W/o Chandan Kumar , D/o Nagendra Kumar
Resident of Village - Nirala Nagar Colony Digha, P.s.- Digha, P.o.-
Digha, Dist.t- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gopal Prasad Roy, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP
Mr.A.K.K. Sahay, Advocate
Mr.Rahul Raj, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-03-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State duly assisted by learned counsel for the
informant/opposite party no. 2.
2. The present quashing application has been
preferred for quashing of the order dated 25.03.2021 passed
by learned Sub-Judge-VIII-cum-A.C.J.M., Patna, whereby
learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner and
others for the offences punishable under section 341, 342,
323, 504, 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6051 of 2022 dt.04-03-2025
2/8
of the Dowry Prohibition Act in connection with Parsa Bazar
P.S. Case No. 111 of 2019.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the
informant/opposite party no. 2 was married with petitioner on
03.12.2017
. Parents of the informant has given ornaments
and other gifts to the tune of Rs. 20 Lakh in marriage. After
marriage the informant went to her sasural, where everything
was good for one week, whereas after three days petitioner
asked informant to bring further Rs 5 Lakhs as dowry because
he has lost his job. Which was denied by O.P. No. 2, upon
which petitioner became violent and started abusing to the
informant/opposite party no.2.
4. The informant further alleged that when she asked
for help from her in-laws, they too supported the petitioner
and thereafter she was tortured on daily basis, physically and
mentally. After one month, petitioner dropped informant to
her maike and returned to Banglore. It is stated that after 4
days, the petitioner asked the informant not to come to
Banglore ever, thereafter, parents of the informant persuaded
and convinced them, then, the petitioner took her to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6051 of 2022 dt.04-03-2025
3/8
Banglore, but there she was also beaten and abused by the
petitioner and demanded money and she was sent back to her
parental house at Patna. It is stated that again on 12 th July
she went to Banglore along with her cousin brother where
mother in-law and petitioner abused and beat her, which goes
for almost one week and, all of a sudden, on one night they
tried to kill her and, thereafter, she informed to police and her
parents. The informant further alleged that she came back to
Patna from Bangalore with her parents. It is stated by the
informant that when she received information regarding death
of her father-in-law, she went to her sasural, where she was
also abused by the accused persons.
5. On the basis of aforesaid written information,
First Information Report (in short ‘F.I.R.’) being Parsa Bazar
P.S. Case No. 111/2019 for the offences punishable under
Section 341, 323, 504, 384, 385, 498(A)/34 of the I.P.C.
and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, was registered.
After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against
petitioner for aforesaid offences.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6051 of 2022 dt.04-03-2025
4/8
behalf of the petitioner that marriage between the parties now
stands dissolved under their mutual consent as provisioned
under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
During course of argument, learned counsel referred para ‘7’
of the judgment of divorce as passed by learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Patna in Matrimonial case No. 1290 of
2023, which is as under:
“7. The record also reveals that parties have settled all
their claims and disputes amicably in respect of
maintenance (past, present and future) and permanent
alimony. The details deposed by them on 03.05.2024
in their statements as PW.1 applicant no.1 and P.W.1
applicant no. 2 and it is suffice to say that these would
be read as part of this order.”
7. In view of aforesaid, it is submitted by learned
counsel that continuing present proceeding qua petitioner
before learned trial court would only amount to abusing the
process of court and law, and, therefore, same be quashed. 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 reported in 2023
SCC Online SC 1083.
8. It would be apposite to reproduce para 13, 14,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6051 of 2022 dt.04-03-2025
5/8
15, 16 & 17 of the Abhishek‘s case (supra), which reads
as under:
“13. Instances of a husband’s family members filing a petition
to quash criminal proceedings 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6051 of 2022 dt.04-03-2025
6/8matrimonial 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
circumspection, to try and read between the lines.
17. In State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors
[(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], 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 information 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6051 of 2022 dt.04-03-2025
7/8of 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 constitute 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 person 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 Act concerned (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 Act concerned,
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.”
9. In view of aforesaid legal and factual submission
and also by taking note of the fact as parties settled their
issues, where petitioner paid maintenance by way of
permanent alimony and also marriage between the parties
stands dissolved by way of mutual divorce, accordingly,
continuing with the present proceeding before the learned
trial court in view of Abhishek‘s case (supra), would only
amount to abuse of the process of the court.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6051 of 2022 dt.04-03-2025
8/8
10. Accordingly, the impugned cognizance order
dated 25.03.2021 as passed by learned Sub-Judge-VIII-
cum-A.C.J.M., Patna in connection with Parsa Bazar P.S. Case
No. 111/2019, G.R. No. 2612/2019 qua petitioner, stands
quashed/set-aside.
11. Accordingly, present quashing petition stands
allowed.
12. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the
learned trial court/concerned court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 04.03.2025 Transmission Date 04.03.2025
[ad_1]
Source link