Patna High Court
Rakesh Kumar @ Sanket Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 26 June, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24815 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7199 Year-2023 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Rakesh Kumar @ Sanket Kumar S/o Late Suresh Prasad Resident at Village-
New Etwarpur, P.S.- Parsa Bazar, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anjali Kumari W/o Mukesh Kumar, D/o Sri Rakesh Kumar Resident at
Village- Nathupur, P.O.- Kurthaul, P.S. Parsa Bazar, District- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamod Vidyarthi, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kalyan Shankar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 26-06-2025
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the parties.
2. Present petition is being filed on behalf of
petitioner for quashing of cognizance order dated 08.01.2024
as passed in complaint case no. 7199(C) of 2023 where
cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the
offences punishable u/s 498(A) and 494 of Indian penal Code
and 4 of D.P. Act by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial
Magistrate Patna.
3. Case of prosecution in brief, is that complainant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24815 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
2/8
has filed complaint case no. 7199 of 2023 against the
accused persons alleging/stating that she solemnized
marriage with co-accused, Mukesh Kumar, on 25.04.2018
according to Hindu rites and ritual. After sometime in-laws
started demanding dowry and due to non-fulfillment of
demand/threatened her to be beaten and killed by way of
strangulation. She informed about this occurrence/ threat to
her parents and was treated at health Center Punpun.
Aforesaid matter was compromised with intervention of police
and she came back to her in-laws house. She further stated
that her husband namely, Mukesh Kumar used to beat with
belt and petitioner used to burn her hands by fire.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the complainant is under habit to file such type
of false complaint. It is submitted that O.P. No. 2 made a
false complaint before the Parsa Bazar police station but after
preliminary enquiry same was not registered as FIR. It is
submitted that the petitioner who is brother-in-law living in
own share of ancestral house. It is submitted that the
petitioner married in year 2022 and working in Sachivalay
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24815 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
3/8
and having no connection with daily and domestic affairs with
O.P. No. 2 and her husband. It is also submitted that the
thrust of allegation qua mental and physical cruelty is
available against the husband of O.P. No. 2 namely, Mukesh
Kumar who alleged to solemnized his another marriage
subsequent to present marriage with one Chandni Kumari.
While concluding argument, it is submitted that while
recording her SA on oath during enquiry, it is stated against
petitioner by O.P. No. 2 that he being “devar” keeps “galat
nazar” (evil eyes). It is submitted that implication of
petitioner only due to relation of petitioner with O.P. No. 2. 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.
5. Mr. Amrendra Kumar learned counsel appearing
for O.P. No. 2 submitted that matter almost compromised
between O.P. No. 2 and her husband but same could not
reduced in writing.
6. It would be apposite to reproduce paragraph
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24815 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
4/8
Nos. 12, 13, 14 ,5, 16 & 17 of Abhishek Case (supra),
which read as:-
12. The contours of the power to quash
criminal proceedings under Section 482
Cr.P.C. are well defined. In V. Ravi Kumar v.
State represented by Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu
[(2019) 14 SCC 568], this Court affirmed that
where an accused seeks quashing of the FIR,
invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High
Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High
Court to enter into the factual arena to
adjudge the correctness of the allegations in
the complaint. In Neeharika Infrastructure (P).
Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal
No. 330 of 2021, decided on 13.04.2021], a
3-Judge Bench of this Court elaborately
considered the scope and extent of the power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was observed
that the power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly, with circumspection and in the
rarest of rare cases, such standard not being
confused with the norm formulated in the
context of the death penalty. It was further
observed that while examining the
FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought,
the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of
the allegations made therein, but if the Court
thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters
of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by
law, and more particularly, the parameters laid
down by this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of
Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) and State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC
335], the Court would have jurisdiction to
quash the FIR/complaint.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24815 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
5/8
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24815 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
6/8
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 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 Bhajan Lal (supra), 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24815 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
7/8sufficiently 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 informant
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
persons 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 concerned Act (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
concerned Act, 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.”
7. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24815 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
8/8
taking note of fact as petitioner is married brother-in-law,
living in same paternal house but with separate arrangement
facing general and omnibus allegations qua alleged cruelty
and also towards raising the demand of dowry, where
accusation started after second marriage of husband of O.P.
No. 2 namely, Mukesh Kumar with which petitioner has
nothing to do, accordingly, by taking a guiding note of
Abhishek case (supra), present quashing petition qua
petitioner stands allowed.
8. Accordingly, impugned order of cognizance
dated 08.01.2024 including any consequential proceedings
there of qua petitioner stands quashed/set aside at admission
stage itself.
9. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the
learned trial court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 28.06.2025 Transmission Date 28.06.2025