[ad_1]
Patna High Court
Satish Kumar Kedia @ Satish Kedia vs The State Of Bihar on 16 April, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5191 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-811 Year-2024 Thana- KANKARBAG District- Patna
======================================================
1. Satish Kumar Kedia @ Satish Kedia S/o Satyanaraian Kedia R/o Flat
No. 302, Shiva Enclave, Tarkeshwar Nath Path, Chiraiyatan, P.S.-
Kankarbagh, Distt.- Patna, Bihar
2. Sangita Kedia W/o Satish Kumar Kedia @ Satish Kedia R/o Flat No.
302, Shiva Enclave, Tarkeshwar Nath Path, Chiraiyatan, P.S.-
Kankarbagh, Distt.- Patna, Bihar
3. Shubham Kedia S/o Satish Kumar Kedia @ Satish Kedia R/o Flat No.
302, Shiva Enclave, Tarkeshwar Nath Path, Chiraiyatan, P.S.-
Kankarbagh, Distt.- Patna, Bihar
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Suresh Kumar S/o Late Sita Prasad R/o Opposite Danapur Cantt,
Police Station, Distt.- Patna
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr.Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Advocate
Mr.Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr.Mukund Kumar, Advocate
Mr.Akash Kumar,Advocate
Mr.Aditya Raman, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Madhura Nand Jha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 16-04-2025
Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Ravi Shankar Pathak,
learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no.2 duly
assisted by learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present petition preferred under Section 528
of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Section 482
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5191 of 2025 dt.16-04-2025
2/10
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred
to as the "Cr.P.C.") for quashing of the First Information
Report (in short the 'F.I.R.') lodged in connection with
Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 811 of 2024, dated 27.10.2024
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 85
and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (in short the
'B.N.S.').
3. The brief facts of the case as it appears from the
narration of the F.I.R. that the informant/O.P. No. 2 married
his daughter namely, Sonal Bhartiya (deceased) to one
Shubham Kedia (petitioner no. 3) according to Hindu rites and
rituals. The informant alleged that at the time of marriage,
total of Rs. 40 lakhs was spent by way of cash, jewelry etc.,
but the in-laws members of his daughter demanded an
additional cash of Rs. 25 Lakhs as dowry. The informant
convinced the in-laws that money would be paid as soon as
possible. The informant stated that due to non-payment of
aforesaid Rs. 25 Lakhs, all the in-laws members tortured his
daughter to the extent that she was even denied for her
regular meal. On 27.10.2024 at about 7:00 P.M. the father-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5191 of 2025 dt.16-04-2025
3/10
in-law (petitioner no. 1) informed the informant that his
daughter had confined herself in a room and not opening the
door and after some time the wife of the informant got a
message that her daughter has hung herself. Thereafter, the
informant received a phone call from the father-in-law of his
daughter as to reach Mediversal Hospital, Patna immediately.
When he reached to the Hospital, he found his daughter was
lying dead in the emergency ward of the hospital. The
informant alleged that due to non-fulfillment of demand of Rs.
25 Lakhs as dowry and due to physical and mental torture by
in-laws of his daughter, she committed suicide.
4. Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, learned counsel for
the petitioners submitted that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are
father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively whereas
petitioner no. 3 is the husband of the deceased daughter of
the informant. Learned counsel submitted that petitioners
have not demanded any money, as alleged, by the informant
through F.I.R., rather petitioners were happy with the
marriage of petitioner no.3 with deceased daughter of the
informant.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5191 of 2025 dt.16-04-2025
4/10
5. Mr. Kejriwal, learned counsel submitted that on
27.10.2024
, all in-laws members and daughter of the
informant started their day with their normal routine,
suddenly, the daughter (deceased) of the informant/O.P. No.
2 confined herself in a room without any disclosure to
anybody in the family and at about 7:00 P.M. in the evening,
when the petitioners found the situation suspicious, broken
the door of the bedroom and they found that the daughter of
the informant hung herself. It is submitted that petitioners
immediately took the daughter of the informant to Mediversal
Hospital, Rajendra Nagar, Patna, where the daughter of the
informant was declared brought dead by the doctors.
6. Learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid case
was instituted by the O.P. No.2 against the petitioners out of
tutoring by his relatives, as no such incident of demand of
dowry had ever made, where both sides had healthy
relationship right from marriage of their childrens. Mr.
Kejriwal submitted that by realizing the truth, the
informant/O.P. No. 2 along with his brothers had executed a
joint compromise petition with the petitioners on 03.01.2025,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5191 of 2025 dt.16-04-2025
5/10
which has been filed in the court of learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate – XI, Patna.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that
informant/O.P. No. 2 also requested the Officer-in-Charge,
Kankarbagh Police Station vide letter dated 02.01.2025 as to
convert the aforesaid criminal case into a UD Case and
discharge the petitioners who are named accused in the F.I.R.
In this regard, a copy of joint compromise petition along with
petition seeking permission for compromise dated
03.01.2025 and 21.01.2025 are available on record.
8. Mr. Kejriwal further submitted that criminal case
arising out of aforesaid First Information Report be quashed
along with all its consequential proceedings. While concluding
his argument, learned counsel relied upon the legal report of
Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Naushey Ali &
Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC
Online SC 292, and submitted that in view of compromise,
even being non-compoundable offence, chance of conviction
is very bleak.
9. Mr. Ravi Shankar Pathak, learned counsel, while
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5191 of 2025 dt.16-04-2025
6/10
appearing for the informant/opposite party no. 2 by filing
counter affidavit, submitted that the aforesaid criminal case
was filed by the opposite party no. 2 due to sudden feelings
faced with heartbreaking incident of death of his deceased
daughter. The informant realised that petitioners have not
involved in any manner in the commission of suicide
committed by his daughter and thus, affirmed the factum of
compromise.
10. Learned counsel submitted that opposite party
no. 2 has filed a joint compromise petition before the learned
court below and further preferred petition seeking permission
to compromise with the petitioners. Opposite party no.
2/informant and his family members, all are unanimous that
petitioners be not prosecuted in connection with the aforesaid
criminal case, as they are not involved in the occurrence
regarding death of his daughter.
11. It would be apposite to reproduce the relevant
paragraphs of Naushey Ali case (supra), for better
understanding the position of law, which reads as under:
“22. In Ramgopal v. State of M.P, (2022) 14 SCC 531,
Surya Kant, J. speaking for this court, in a case involving a
charge under Section 326 IPC, while annulling the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5191 of 2025 dt.16-04-2025
7/10proceedings, felicitously set out the statement of law and
applied it to the facts of the said case as under:
19. We thus sum up and hold that as opposed to Section 320
CrPC where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise
between the parties in respect of offences “compoundable”
within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power
enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 CrPC or vested
in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be
invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 CrPC.
Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude
ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing
criminal proceedings, bearing in mind:
19.1. Nature and effect of the offence on the conscience of
the society;
19.2. Seriousness of the injury, if any;
19.3 Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused
and the victim; and19.4 Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the
occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant
considerations.
20. Having appraised the aforestated parameters and
weighing upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the two
appeals before us, we are inclined to invoke powers under
Article 142 and quash the criminal proceedings and
consequently set aside the conviction in both the appeals. We
say so for the reasons that:
20.1. Firstly, the occurrence(s) involved in these appeals can
be categorised as purely personal or having overtones of
criminal proceedings of private nature.
20.2. Secondly, the nature of injuries incurred, for which the
appellants have been convicted, do not appear to exhibit their
mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a
serious nature that quashing of which would override public
interest.
20.3. Thirdly, given the nature of the offence and injuries, it
is immaterial that the trial against the appellants had been
concluded or their appeal(s) against conviction stand
dismissed.
20.4. Fourthly, the parties on their own volition, without any
coercion or compulsion, willingly and voluntarily have buried
their differences and wish to accord a quietus to their
dispute(s).
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5191 of 2025 dt.16-04-2025
8/10
20.5. Fifthly, the occurrence(s) in both the cases took place
way back in the years 2000 and 1995, respectively. There is
nothing on record to evince that either before or after the
purported compromise, any untoward incident transpired
between the parties.
20.6. Sixthly, since the appellants and the complainant(s) are
residents of the same village(s) and/or work in close vicinity,
the quashing of criminal proceedings will advance peace,
harmony, and fellowship amongst the parties who have
decided to forget and forgive any ill will and have no
vengeance against each other.
20.7. Seventhly, the cause of administration of criminal
justice system would remain un-effected on acceptance of the
amicable settlement between the parties and/or resultant
acquittal of the appellants; more so looking at their present
age.”
12. It would be further apposite to reproduce Section
80, 85 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, which reads as
under:
“80. Dowry death.–(1) Where the death of a woman is
caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise
than under normal circumstances within seven years of her
marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was
subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any
relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”,
and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have
caused her death.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this sub-section,
“dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven
years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
85. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.– Whoever, being the husband
or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5191 of 2025 dt.16-04-2025
9/10
13. From perusal of record and considering the
argument as canvassed by learned counsel apparing for the
parties, it transpires that the daughter of informant
committed suicide in her matrimonial home by hanging
herself, as she faced continuous mental and physical torture
due to non-fulfillment of demand of additional dowry of Rs.
25 Lakhs. After investigation, the investigating authority
submitted the charge-sheet against petitioners for the
offences punishable under Section 85/80/3(5) of the B.N.S.,
2023, vide Charge-sheet No. 511706524081101/25 dated
6.4.2025. It transpires that during investigation, nothing
surfaced as matter appears compromised between the
parties, as submitted above, however, learned counsel
appearing for the opposite party no. 2 supported the factum
of compromise on affidavit. If the accused persons, on the
basis of exclusive note of compromise, would allowed to let go
free by quashing the F.I.R., exercising power under Section
528 of the B.N.S.S. against offence like dowry death, it would
go against the conscience of the society despite of
compromise.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5191 of 2025 dt.16-04-2025
10/10
14. Hence, considering the seriousness of offence, as
alleged, its nature and the effect of the offence on the society
at large, where the daughter of the informant committed
suicide in her matrimonial home due to non-fulfillment of
alleged demand of dowry, the prayer of petitioner as to quash
the F.I.R. is not appears convincing as same not appears to
fall within the legal frame of Naushey Ali case (supra) as
discussed aforesaid.
15. Hence, the present petition devoid of any merit.
Accordingly, same stands dismissed.
16. However, petitioners/ accused persons may raise
all such issues at the time of framing of charge or at
appropriate stage, if so advised.
17. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the
learned trial court/concerned court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 08.04.2025 Uploading Date 16.04.2025 Transmission Date 16.04.2025
[ad_2]
Source link