[ad_1]
Patna High Court
Satymeo Suman @ Satyamev Suman 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.17983 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-189 Year-2019 Thana- NATHNAGAR District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
1. Satymeo Suman @ Satyamev Suman Son of Late Faiju Mandal R/o Village-
Laxman Bagh Kauwa koli, P.S.- Nathnagar, District- Bhagalpur. Present
Address- Railway colony, D-10, Room No.204, Carriage Repairing Factory,
Harnaut, District- Nalanda (Bihar)
2. Ramswarup Prasad Singh @ Ramswarup Mandal Son of Late Faiju Singh
R/o Village- Laxman Bagh Kauwa koli, P.S.- Nathnagar, District- Bhagalpur
3. Lakshman Mandal @ Lakshman Singh Son of Late Faiju Singh R/o Village-
Laxman Bagh Kauwa koli, P.S.- Nathnagar, District- Bhagalpur
4. Subhash Mandal @ Subhash Singh Son of Late Faiju Singh R/o Village-
Laxman Bagh Kauwa koli, P.S.- Nathnagar, District- Bhagalpur
5. Manoj Mandal @ Manoj Kumar Son of Late Faiju Singh R/o Village-
Laxman Bagh Kauwa koli, P.S.- Nathnagar, District- Bhagalpur
6. Renu Devi Wife of Late Sanjay Singh R/o Village- Laxman Bagh Kauwa
koli, P.S.- Nathnagar, District- Bhagalpur
7. Rani Kushwaha Wife of Dinesh Prasad Singh R/o Village- Baijalpur, Amaia,
P.S.- Prasarganj, District- Munger
8. Diwesh Singh @ Diwesh Kumar Son of Dinesh Prasad Singh R/o Village-
Baijalpur, Amaia, P.S.- Prasarganj, District- Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kalyani Kumari Wife of Satymeo Suman @ Satyamev Suman, D/o Ranveer
Singh R/o Village- Basantpur, P.S.- Lidipur, District- Bhagalpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gaurav Prakash, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Md. Fahimuddin, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-04-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17983 of 2024 dt.21-04-2025
2/8
2. The present application has been preferred by the
petitioner for quashing of cognizance order dated 22.03.2022
as passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur in
connection with G.R. No.1663 of 2019 arising out of
Nathnagar (Madhusudanpur) P.S. Case No.189 of 2019,
whereby the learned Chief Jurisdictional Magistrate,
Bhagalpur has taken cognizance for the offences punishable
under Section 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code
(in short 'IPC') and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
against the petitioners.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, that
informant/O.P. No. 2 married Satymeo Suman on
31.05.2015
as per Hindu rites, where her father gave gifts
worth Rs. 9,00,000/- during the marriage. She lived happily
for two years, but thereafter, her husband and in-laws
(Petitioners No(s). 1 to 8) allegedly started her harassment
mentally and physically for further dowry for Rs. 5,00,000/-
and also demanded as car. She further alleged that her
husband, who works in the railways, has an extramarital affair
with her sister-in-law Renu Devi, and under her influence, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17983 of 2024 dt.21-04-2025
3/8
harassment intensified. The informant claimed multiple
attempts were made on her life due to non-fulfillment of
dowry demands. On 14.04.09, the accused allegedly abused,
assaulted, and forcibly ousted her from the matrimonial
home.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that marriage between the parties
now stands dissolved under their mutual consent as
provisioned under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955. During course of argument, learned counsel referred to
para ‘5’ of the judgment of divorce as passed by learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur in Matrimonial case
No. 62 of 2022, which is as under:
” 5- vfHkys[k voyksdu ls fofnr gksrk gS fd mHk;i{k dk fookg fnukad
31-05-2015 dks fgUnw jhfr&fjokt ds vuqlkj lEiUu gqvk gS rFkk
nksuksa ,d o”kZ ls vf/kd le; ls vyx jg jgs gSaA ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky;] iVuk ds e/;LFkrk dfefV ds le{k Hkh mHk;i{k mifLFkr gq,
gSa] ijUrq ogka Hkh nksuksa i{kksa esa lkFk jgus ds laca/k esa ckr ugha cuhA rc
ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk ds le{k nksuksa i{k vkilh lgefr ds
vk/kkj ij fupyh vnkyr esa fookg&foPNsn gsrq dsl nk;j djus ij
lger gq, gSa vkSj nksuksa i{kksa ds chp LFkk;h Hkj.k&iks”k.k jkf’k ,oa vU;
‘krksZa ds laca/k esa ,d ,xzhesUV fnukad 16-12-21 Hkh ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;
ds le{k cuk gS] tks vfHkys[k ij gSA rRi’pkr~ mHk;i{k }kjk vkilh
lgefr ls fookg&foPNsn gsrq orZeku okn yk;k x;k gSA ,xzhesUV ds
vuqlkj mHki{k }kjk lHkh ‘krksZa dk vuqikyu fd;k tk pqdk gS rFkk
vkosnd la[;k&02 dks LFkk;h Hkj.k&iks”k.k jkf’k (Permanent
Alimony) ds :i esa dqy 15 yk[k :i;s izkIr gks pqdk gS ,oa vc nksuksa
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17983 of 2024 dt.21-04-2025
4/8i{kksa ds chp dksbZ ysu&nsu ‘ks”k ugha gSA mHk;i{k ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;s gSa
fd fookg&foPNsn ds i’pkr~ Hkfo”; esa nksuksa dk ,d&nwljs ds izfr dksbZ
mRrjnkf;Ro rFkk ,d&nwljs ds py@vpy lEifr esa dksbZ nkok ugha
jgsxkA”
5. In view of aforesaid context, it is also submitted
by learned counsel that petitioner no. 1 has paid maintenance
amount of Rs.15 lakhs to O.P. No.2 as one time settlement by
way of permanent alimony and as such all dispute between
the parties appears settled.
6. 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 courts 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.
7. 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17983 of 2024 dt.21-04-2025
5/8We 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-
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17983 of 2024 dt.21-04-2025
6/8quashed, 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17983 of 2024 dt.21-04-2025
7/8without 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
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.”
8. In view of aforesaid legal and factual submission
and also by taking note of the fact as parties settled their
issues and differences, where petitioner no.1 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.
9. Accordingly, the impugned cognizance order dated
22.03.2022 as passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17983 of 2024 dt.21-04-2025
8/8
Bhagalpur in connection with G.R. No.1663 of 2019 arising
out of Nathnagar (Madhusudanpur) P.S. Case No.189 of
2019 qua all above named petitioners is hereby quashed and
set-aside.
10. Accordingly, present quashing petition stands
allowed.
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
[ad_2]
Source link