Patna High Court
Md. Tajuddin @ Tajuddin vs The State Of Bihar on 8 April, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17845 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Siwan
======================================================
1. Md. Tajuddin @ Tajuddin, S/o Late Md. Kabir, R/o village - Jalalpur, P.S.-
Marhaura, Distt. - Saran at Chhapra
2. Afsi Khatoon @ Afsri Khatoon, W/o Md. Tajuddin @ Tajuddin, R/o village -
Jalalpur, P.S. - Marhaura, Distt. - Saran at Chhapra
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rafeya Khatoon D/o Nesar Ahmad R/o village - Sharif Jalalpur, Lakari
Nabiganj, P.S - Basantpur, Distt. - Siwan
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, Advocate
Mr. Pratyush, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Ms. Shyama Rani, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-04-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant/O.P. No.2.
2. The present application has been filed by the
petitioners for quashing of the order dated 20.09.2022
passed by learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in
connection with Mahila (Siwan) P.S. Case No. 20 of 2021, Tr.
No. 3603 of 2024, whereby the learned Jurisdictional
Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17845 of 2024 dt.08-04-2025
2/12
the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 498-A read
with 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 and 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The case of prosecution, in brief, which is based
upon the written information of one Rafeya Khatoon
submitted before the Officer-in-charge, Mahila (Siwan) Police
Station alleging that on 08.11.2016, her marriage was
solemnized with one Md. Allauddin in accordance with Muslim
Rites and Customs and her parents gave cash of Rs.
1,00,000/- and other articles worth rupees three lakhs as a
gift. After her marriage, she went to her sasural and lived
there happily. Thereafter, her husband (1) Md. Allauddin, (2)
Md. Tajuddin (petitioner no.1) and (3) Afsi Khatoon
(petitioner no.2) have demanded a Hero Honda Motorcycle
and Rs. 50,000/- in cash as dowry and have tortured her
physically and mentally and they have also assaulted the
informant with fist and slap. It is further alleged that on
18.02.2020
, all the accused persons have snatched her
belongings and ousted her from her matrimonial home and on
12.12.2020 at 10.00 a.m., all the accused persons have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17845 of 2024 dt.08-04-2025
3/12
came at her naihar (parental home) and abused her. Accused
persons have alleged to assaulted her brother and her
husband threatened her to perform second marriage.
4. On the basis of aforesaid written information,
Mahila (Siwan) P.S. Case No.20 of 2021 was registered
against the petitioners and others under Sections 498-A of
the IPC as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act.
5. After registration of FIR, the police investigated
the case and submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners
and other accused persons before the court of learned Sub-
divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siwan. Thereafter, the learned
Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siwan took cognizance
against the petitioners and others for the offences punishable
under Sections 341, 323, 498-A read with 34 of the IPC as
well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on
20.09.2022.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that the petitioner no.1 is the brother-
in-law (Bhaisur) and petitioner no.2 is the sister-in-law
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17845 of 2024 dt.08-04-2025
4/12
(Gotni) of the informant. It is further submitted that the
informant often nag her husband to live separately by leaving
joint family, as she was desirous to get separate share in the
family property and due to this, the petitioners were
implicated falsely in the present case.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that on
07.03.2019, the petitioner no.1, husband of O.P. No.2 and
other family members reached on a mutually agreed
settlement in the presence of the members of Panchayat and
as per said agreement, a detailed formulation was made qua
usage of the residential house and other ancestral properties.
It is further submitted that as per aforesaid settlement, the
petitioners started living separately from the informant and
her husband and they have no concern with daily and
domestic affairs of O.P. No. 2 and her husband.
8. Learned counsel further submitted that on
21.09.2019, the informant with her family members
assaulted the petitioner no.2 and other family members and
took away cash and other expensive items of petitioners for
which, the petitioner no.1 had filed a complaint case vide
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17845 of 2024 dt.08-04-2025
5/12
Complaint Case No.3393 of 2019 against the informant/O.P.
No.2 and her family members before the court of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhapra, Saran. Thereafter, on
16.08.2021, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,
Chhapra, took cognizance against the informant and one
Shadrul under Sections 341, 323, 506 and 379 of the IPC. In
retaliation to aforesaid complaint case, the informant wanted
to take revenge from the petitioners, resultantly falsely
implicated the petitioners with present case. It is further
submitted that the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken
cognizance against the petitioners in very mechanical manner
without applying the settled principle of law, as no offence has
been made out against the petitioners, which is also evident
from perusal of FIR and allegation alleged thereof, therefore,
the impugned order of cognizance is fit to be quashed and set
aside. It is further submitted that the allegation levelled in the
FIR against the petitioners appears very much general and
omnibus qua alleged cruelty as said to be committed upon
O.P. No. 2.
9. In support of his aforesaid submission, learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17845 of 2024 dt.08-04-2025
6/12
counsel has relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme
Court as available in the matter of Abhishek vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083.
10. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for
the State duly assisted by learned counsel appearing for the
informant/O.P. No.2 submitted that the petitioners have
assaulted and tortured the informant due to non-fulfilment of
demand of dowry but, fairly conceded that in terms of
Panchayati prima-facie petitioners appears living separately
from the informant and her husband and they have no
concern with daily and domestic routine of the informant and
her husband.
11. It would be apposite to reproduce para-13, 14,
15, 16 and 17 of the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court
passed in the case of Abhishek case (supra), which are 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17845 of 2024 dt.08-04-2025
7/12[(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,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17845 of 2024 dt.08-04-2025
8/12who 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17845 of 2024 dt.08-04-2025
9/12alone 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 vs. Bhajan Lal [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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17845 of 2024 dt.08-04-2025
10/12information 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17845 of 2024 dt.08-04-2025
11/12against 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’.”
12. From perusal of FIR, it transpires that in the
FIR, the informant has raised a very general and omnibus
allegation qua alleged cruelty and demand of dowry against
the petitioners. The petitioners are living separately from the
informant as per agreed family settlement and prima-facie
they have no concern with daily and domestic affairs of the
informant and her husband. It further appears that since
petitioner no.2 has filed a complaint case before the court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhapra, Saran against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17845 of 2024 dt.08-04-2025
12/12
informant and her family members, as discussed aforesaid, in
retaliation thereto, the informant has implicated the above-
named petitioners in present case being in-laws out of her
malicious approach.
13. In view of aforesaid factual and legal
submissions and by taking a guiding note of Abhishek case
(supra), the impugned order taking cognizance dated
20.09.2022 as passed by learned Sub-divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Siwan in connection with Mahila (Siwan) P.S.
Case No. 20 of 2021, Tr. No.3603 of 2024 qua both above-
named petitioners is hereby quashed and set aside.
14. The application stands allowed.
15. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
learned trial court immediately.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 09.04.2025 Transmission Date 09.04.2025
[ad_1]
Source link