Patna High Court
Praveen Kumar @ Praveen Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 21 April, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12320 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-143 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Patna
======================================================
Praveen Kumar @ Praveen Kumar Singh S/O- Arjun Singh @ Arjun Prasad
@ Arjun Prasad Singh R/O-Chakardaha mor, Bhawani Kuan, P.S. - Khagaul,
District - Patna. At Present Kasturba School Loco colony, Qtr 132 CD, P.S.
Khagaul, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sifali Suman W/O - Praveen Kumar, D/O -Anil Kumar Singh Resident of
Village- Naya Tola Nawgachhiya, P.S.- Nawgachhiya, District-Bhagalpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jata Shankar Jha, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-04-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The present application has been preferred by the
petitioner for quashing the order of cognizance dated
17.12.2021
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Patna arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No.143 of 2020,
whereby the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken
cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 498A
and 313 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC‘) and Section
3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12320 of 2025 dt.21-04-2025
2/7
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that
informant, Shifali Suman, was married to the petitioner on
25.11.2015 as per Hindu rituals. On said occasion, her father
gave Rs. 15 lakhs in cash along with jewelry and other
valuable items as gifts. After marriage, her husband and in-
laws allegedly demanded a car and Rs. 5 lakhs more as
dowry. She was reportedly assaulted for failing to meet these
demands. Further allegations include threats to remarry her
husband due to her being childless, abused her physically on
several occasions after drinking liquor. In July 2019, the in-
laws allegedly ousted her from her matrimonial home,
keeping her stridhan, and since then she has been residing
with her parents.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
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.
5. In view of aforesaid context, it is also submitted
by learned counsel that petitioner has paid maintenance
amount of Rs.10 lakhs to O.P. No.2 as one time settlement by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12320 of 2025 dt.21-04-2025
3/7
way of permanent alimony and as such all dispute between
the parties appears settled.
6. Aforesaid facts qua dissolution of marriage and
payment of permanent alimony also supported by learned
counsel Mr. Massom Alam, appearing for O.P. No. 2.
7. In view of aforesaid, it is submitted by learned
counsel that continuing with present criminal proceeding qua
petitioner before learned trial court would only amount to
abusing the process of court of 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,
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-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12320 of 2025 dt.21-04-2025
4/7laws 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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12320 of 2025 dt.21-04-2025
5/7the 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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12320 of 2025 dt.21-04-2025
6/7accused.
(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 to O.P. No.2 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.
10. Accordingly, the impugned cognizance order
dated 17.12.2021 as passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st
Class, Patna arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No.143 of 2020
qua petitioner is hereby quashed/set-aside.
10. Accordingly, present quashing petition stands
allowed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12320 of 2025 dt.21-04-2025
7/7
11. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the
learned trial court/concerned court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
S.Tripathi/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 22.04.2025 Transmission Date 22.04.2025