[ad_1]
Patna High Court
Rinku Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 5 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10051 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10920 Year-2022 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
1. Rinku Kumar S/O Shri Naresh Razak R/O Eastern Lohanipur, Railway
Hunder Road, Kadamkuan, P.S- Kadamkuan, Distt- Patna.
2. Shri Naresh Razak S/O Murat Razak R/O Eastern Lohanipur, Railway
Hunder Road, Kadamkuan, P.S- Kadamkuan, Distt.- Patna.
3. Nilam Devi W/O Shri Naresh Razak R/O Eastern Lohanipur, Railway
Hunder Road, Kadamkuan, P.S- Kadamkuan, Distt.- Patna.
4. Rinki Devi @ Rinki Kumari W/O Mantu Razak, D/O Shri Naresh Razak
R/O Chowk Patnacity, P.S- Chowk, Patna City, Distt.- Patna.
5. Mantu Razak S/O Diwali Razak R/O Chowk Patnacity, P.S- Chowk, Patna
City, Distt.- Patna.
6. Pinki Kumari D/O Shri Naresh Razak R/O Eastern Lohanipur, Railway
Hunder Road, Kadamkuan, P.S- Kadamkuan, Distt- Patan.
7. Mukesh Kumar Son Of Late Budhan Razan R/O New Bangali Tola, Devi
Sthan Gali Me, P.S- Jakkanpur, Distt.- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Ruby Kumari W/O Rinku Kumar, D/O Nandlal Razak Presently Residing At
Ramjichak, Digha Nahar Road, Behind Rajkumar Advocate, Bataganj,
Distt.- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Kaushlendra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-08-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2.
2. This application has been filed for quashing the order
of cognizance dated 20/07/2023 passed in Complaint Case no-
10920(C)/2022, whereby cognizance has been taken for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10051 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
2/12
offences under Sections 498(A), 323, 34 of Indian Penal Code
against the husband and in- laws of the opposite party no-2,
pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st class,
Patna, Bihar.
3. The prosecution story in short is that the marriage of
the O.P. No. 2 was solemnized with the petitioner no. 1 in
accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. After marriage the
accused persons started demanding Rs. 10 lacs and upon non-
fulfillment of the same she was subjected to mental, physical
and economical harassment and cruelty by various means. On
06.04.2017
she gave birth to a girl child in her parent’s house
and after that when she returned to her in-laws house, they
snatched all her belongings and since then she was forced to live
at her Maika.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
that the petitioner no-1 is the husband, Petitioner no – 2 is the
father- in- law, petitioner no-3 is the mother in law, petitioner
no. 4 is the sister in law (Married Nanad), petitioner no 5 is the
brother- in-law (Nandoi), petitioner no. 6 is the sister-in-law
(unmarried Nanad), petitioner no. 7 is the maternal uncle
(Mama) of the husband of the complainant-Opposite Party no-2
and are quite innocent and have committed no offence as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10051 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
3/12
alleged in the complaint petition and have been falsely
implicated in this case due to ulterior motive of the
Complainant/Opposite Party no-2. Learned counsel has
submitted that the marriage of the petitioner no-1 with
complainant/opposite party no-2 was solemnized on 17/02/2016
and as per the statement of the complainant, she left the
matrimonial house on 14/01/2017 due to her ill health and thus
she stayed at her sasural till 14/01/2017 and during this period
complainant/opposite party no-2 always tried to live separately
from her in laws family. She finally left the matrimonial house
on 09/04/2018 and during this period couple were blessed with a
girl child on 06/04/2017. The present complaint case was filed
only to pressurize the petitioner. It has further been submitted
that just after the birth of the girl child, the Opposite Party no-2
has left the matrimonial house without any rhyme and reason.
The Petitioner no-1 tried to pacify the matter but lastly finding
no way the Petitioner no-1 filed a petition for restitution of their
conjugal rights bearing Matrimonial Case no-1100/2017, in
which the Opposite Party no- 2 appeared and filed her written
Statement on 18/02/2018 and in her written statement, she has
not mentioned even a single word that her husband and in-laws
had ever demanded any dowry from the Opposite Party no- 2
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10051 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
4/12
but suddenly in the present complaint case she for the first time
falsely stated that for want of dowry she was subjected to
torture. In above mentioned case, the mediation process between
the Parties was conducted which failed due to the arrogant
behavior of the Opposite Party no-2 and thus the petitioner was
forced to withdraw the said case to enable him to file a case for
decree of divorce.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that the Petitioner no-1, who is the husband of the
complainant/opposite party no-2, also filed Informatory Petition
bearing no- 2117/2017 dated 15/07/2017 and 1737/2018 dated
01/06/2018 in which it was informed to the learned court that
the complainant/opposite party no-2 threatened the petitioner
and his family to implicate them in a false case. When all the
efforts to bring the wife at her matrimonial home with full honor
and dignity failed, then the petitioner was forced to file a case
before the learned Family Court for Grant of Decree of Divorce,
which was numbered as Matrimonial (Divorce) Case no-
996/2018 in which also the Opposite Party no- 2 appeared and
filed her written Statement on 01/06/2022 and again this time
also in her written statement, she has not mentioned even a
single word that the petitioner and in-laws had ever demanded
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10051 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
5/12
any dowry from the Opposite Party no.-2 but suddenly in the
present complaint case, she, for the first time falsely stated that
for want of dowry she was subjected to torture and in this case
also the Mediation was conducted by the learned Court which
again failed and the matrimonial case is still pending for final
outcome. It has been submitted that in the year 2022, the
complainant/Opposite Party no 2 also filed a case under
Domestic Violence Act against the petitioner and her in- laws on
false and frivolous facts. The complainant / Opposite Party no- 2
also filed Maintenance case no.- 398/2022 on 22/09/2022 for
getting maintenance on false and frivolous facts, in which she
has not disclosed this fact that she is a Government teacher and
getting a salary of more than Rs. 50,000/- whereas the
petitioner is working as a Technical staff at the office of this
Hon’ble Court and further for the constant harassment at the
hands of his daughter-in-law and her family, the petitioner no- 2
i.e. father of the Petitioner no-1, filed a complaint case
(Annexure-7) against the Complainant/Opposite Party no-2 and
the members of the family of the O.P. No. 2 before the C.J.M.,
Patna in which cognizance has been taken for offences under
Sections 323, 341, 379 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and
the date is fixed for their appearance.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10051 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
6/12
6. The learned counsel has referred to a recent judgment
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Geddam Jhansi & Anr
vs. the State of Telangana & Ors. passed in SLP (Cri.) No.
9556 of 2022 and SLP (Cri) No. 428 of 2024 (2025 INSC 160)
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 32 and 35 has made
observations which very well defines the tenor of the present
case.
“32. We have to keep in mind that in the context
of matrimonial disputes, emotions run high, and as
such in the complaints filed alleging harassment or
domestic violence, there may be a tendency to
implicate other members of the family who do not
come to the rescue of the complainant or remain
mute spectators to any alleged incident of
harassment, which in our view cannot by itself
constitute a criminal act without there being
specific acts attributed to them. Further, when
tempers run high and relationships turn bitter,
there is also a propensity to exaggerate the
allegations, which does not necessarily mean that
such domestic disputes should be given the colour
of criminality.
35. We are, thus, of the view that in criminal cases
relating to domestic violence, the complaints and
charges should be specific, as far as possible, as
against each and every member of the family who
are accused of such offences and sought to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10051 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
7/12prosecuted, as otherwise, it may amount to misuse
of the stringent criminal process by
indiscriminately dragging all the members of the
family. There may be situations where some of the
family members or relatives may turn a blind eye to
the violence or harassment perpetrated to the
victim, and may not extend any helping hand to the
victim, which does not necessarily mean that they
are also perpetrators of domestic violence, unless
the circumstances clearly indicate their
involvement and instigation. Hence, implicating all
such relatives without making specific allegations
and attributing offending acts to them and
proceeding against them without prima facie
evidence that they were complicit and had actively
collaborated with the perpetrators of domestic
violence, would amount to abuse of the process of
law.”
7. Learned counsel has submitted that from the above it
is clear that the present case has been lodged with general and
omnibus allegations at the instigation of the family members of
the Opposite Party no- 2 to file this case after a lapse of 5 years
of desertion of the Petitioner because they did not want that the
Opposite party no-2 lives happily at her in-laws house and that
is why she always denied to live with the petitioner, which
could be evident from the fact that the mediation before the
learned Family Court always failed due to the strange and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10051 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
8/12
arrogant behavior of the Opposite Party No. 2. It has lastly been
submitted that the entire criminal proceeding against petitioners
is a glaring example of abuse of process of law and is fit to be
quashed.
8. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and the learned APP
for the State vehemently opposed the present application stating
that from perusal of the FIR there is allegations upon the
petitioners and as such prima facie case is being made out and
the present application, for quashing of the order taking
cognizance is misconceived and no interference is required with
the impugned order which has been passed after due
deliberation.
9. The learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that
from bare reading of the cognizance order it would be evident
that prima facie case is being made out against the petitioners
and thus on the sufficient material available on record
cognizance under Sections 498A, 323 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code was taken against the petitioners. It was upon the
contents of the complaint as well as the statement of the enquiry
witnesses and the entire documentary evidences that the learned
J.M 1st Class, Patna has found specific allegation against
petitioners including the husband of torture both mental and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10051 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
9/12
physical and thus has rightly taken cognizance. The Opp. Party
No. 2 was forced to leave her in-laws house and after much
deliberations the present case was filed, when the O.P. No. 2
found that the petitioners were not ready to allow her to come
back and live a happy conjugal life.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties, this Court is reminded of the various judicial
pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as other
High Court’s wherein the Courts have held that criminalizing of
domestic disputes without specific allegations and credible
materials to support the same makes personal relationships sour
and any chance of restitution also fails, which has happened in
the present matter.
11. The complainant admittedly files the present
complaint on 19.09.2022 apparently stating the date of
occurrence as 18.02.2016, which makes the complaint time
barred. Not only that, the complaint further do not disclose that
the complainant had gone to the police station for lodging of the
present case and on non-acceptance of the same this complaint
was preferred by her.
12. This Court on perusal of the complaint finds that
several allegations have been levelled although devoid of any
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10051 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
10/12
specificity like who among the accused did what and on what
date ? There is a general and omnibus allegations of various acts
without attributing specific roles especially when the accused
persons were married sister-in-law and her husband.
13. At this juncture, the observations made by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar Alias
Sonam & Ors vs. State of Bihar reported in (2022) 6 SCC
599 is to be taken note of, wherein it has been stated in para 15
and 16 as under :
“15 In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of UP. it
was observed: (SCC p.749, para 21)“21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note
of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the
matter of G.V Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad wherein also
in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that
the High Court should have quashed the complaint
arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all
family members had been roped into the
matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set
aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which
we entirely agree that: (SCC p.698, para 12)“12…..There has been an outburst of
matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a
sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to
enable the young couple to settle down in life and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10051 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
11/12live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes
suddenly erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which
elders of the family are also involved with the
result that those who could have counselled and
brought about rapprochement are rendered
helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the
criminal case. There are many reasons which need
not be mentioned here for not encouraging
matrimonial litigation so that the parties may
ponder over their defaults and terminate the
disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of
fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years
and years to conclude and in that process the
parties lose their “young” days in chasing their
cases in different courts.”
The view taken by the judges in this matter was
that the courts would not encourage such
disputes.”
16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of
Telangana 8, it was also observed that : (SCC p.
454, para 6)
“6. The Courts should be careful in
proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes
pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry
deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be
roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless
specific instances of their involvement in the crime
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10051 of 2024 dt.05-08-2025
12/12
are made out.”
14. Thus, on consideration of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and the submissions made by the parties as also
the judicial pronouncements on the issue in hand, this Court
holds that the present prosecution against the petitioner lacks
specificity and thus would amount to abuse of the process of
law with vague and general allegations against all the petitioners
that too as an after thought i.e. more than 6 years delay of the
date of occurrence and which was never raised by the Opp.
Party No. 2 earlier in any of the proceedings pending between
the parties.
15. In view of the same, the application is allowed.
16. The impugned order dated 20.07.2023 by which
cognizance was taken against the petitioners is hereby quashed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Prakash/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date
Transmission Date
[ad_2]
Source link