Patna High Court
Kumari Suman vs The State Of Bihar on 5 March, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34348 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Patna
======================================================
1. Kumari Suman W/o Bikash Kumar
2. Bikash Kumar S/o Binod Kumar
Both are Resident of House No. 804/F-39, Vinit Sadan, Ratu Road, Adarsh
Nagar, naya Toli, Pandra, Hehal, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand and Presently
residing at A-211, Sri Sai Residency, TCI Chowk, Rourkela, 769004, Odisha
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Archana Kumari, D/o Om Prakash, R/o Mohalla-Purani Jakkanpur (Janta
Road), P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Gardanibagh, District- Patna
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kumar Ravish, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Parmanand Kumar
For the Informant : Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Wasi Mohammad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-03-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State duly assisted by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2.
2. The present application has been filed by the
petitioners for quashing of the First Information Report (in
short 'F.I.R.') of Mahila P.S. Case No.47 of 2021 dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34348 of 2022 dt.05-03-2025
2/7
04.05.2021
registered under Sections 341, 323, 498-A,
506 , 509 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘I.P.C.’) as well
as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is to
assault the informant along with other relative/family
members due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry and thus
by committed cruelty upon O.P. No.2 on various occasions.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
petitioners that the petitioner no.1 is married sister-in-law of
O.P. No.2 and petitioner no.2 is husband of petitioner no.1. It
is pointed out that petitioner no.1 is living separately with
petitioner no.2 being wife and husband and their marriage
was solemnized much before the marriage of O.P. No.2 with
brother of petitioner no.1. It is submitted that the implication
appears prima facie only out of the relation, as petitioner no.1
is the sister of husband of O.P. No.2. It is also submitted that
the allegation qua alleged cruelty appears very much general
and omnibus and moreover the matter appears compromised
between the parties against the permanent alimony of
Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) and they also
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34348 of 2022 dt.05-03-2025
3/7
decided to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual divorce.
In support of his submission, the learned counsel referred to
Annexure-R/1 of the counter affidavit, which was filed by
opposite party no.2.
5. In view of aforesaid, it is submitted that in view
of aforesaid fact as parties settled their dispute, continuing
with present criminal proceeding before the trial court would
only amount to abuse of the process of court of law. In
support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon legal
report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through
Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023
SCC Online SC 1083.
6. Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has affirmed the
factum of compromise as submitted above by learned counsel
appearing for petitioners.
7. It would be apposite to reproduce paragraph nos.
13, 14, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34348 of 2022 dt.05-03-2025
4/7nor 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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34348 of 2022 dt.05-03-2025
5/7Constitution, 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
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 constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34348 of 2022 dt.05-03-2025
6/7offence, 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.”
8. In view of aforesaid factual and legal submissions
and by taking note of fact as petitioners are in-laws living
separately and moreover, the dispute with O.P. No.2 appears
compromised, therefore, in view of Abhishek case (supra),
continuing with present criminal proceedings before the trial
court would only amount to abuse of the process of court of
law.
9. Accordingly, the F.I.R. of Mahila P.S. Case
No.47 of 2021 dated 04.05.2021 with all its consequential
proceedings emanating therefrom qua petitioners before the
learned trial court is hereby quashed and set aside.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34348 of 2022 dt.05-03-2025
7/7
10. The application stands allowed.
11. Let a copy of the judgment be communicated to
the learned trial court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 06-03-2025 Transmission Date 06-03-2025