Patna High Court
Shashikant vs The State Of Bihar on 7 July, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1682 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-158 Year-2018 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Patna
======================================================
1. Mrs. Indu Bala W/o Mr. Shreekant R/o Tez Pratap Nagar, New Bye Pass
Road, P.S.- Beur Anisabad, Patna.
2. Mr. Saurabh Suman @ Saurabh Kumar S/o Mr. Shreekant R/o Tez Pratap
Nagar, New Bye Pass Road, P.S.- Beur Anisabad, Patna.
3. Miss Komal Sakshi @ Komal Kumari D/o Mr. Shreekant R/o Tez Pratatp
Nagar, New Bye Pass Road, P.S.- Beur Anisabad, Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sudarshana Jyoti D/o Late Jamuna Prasad R/o - 558/C, Railway Gandak
Colony, P.S.- Gandak Colony, Distt- Samastipur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 1908 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-158 Year-2018 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Patna
======================================================
1. Shashikant S/O Late Ram Keshab Prasad @ Ram Kewal Prasad Resident of
Mohalla- Tej Pratap Nagar, New Bypass Road Anishabad, P.S.- Beur, Distt-
Patna.
2. Anita Devi @ Anita Prasad W/o Shashikant Resident Of Mohalla- Tej Pratap
Nagar, New Bypass Road Anishabad, P.S.- Beur, Distt- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sudarshana Jyoti D/o Late Jamuna Prasad R/o Mohalla- Railway Gandak
Colony, Quarter No. 558, P.S.- Samastipur, Distt- Samastipur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1682 of 2023 dt.07-07-2025
2/18
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 63048 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-158 Year-2018 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Patna
======================================================
Shreekant S/o- Late Ram Kewal Prasad R/o- Tez Pratap Nagar, New Bye Pass
Road, Ps-Beur, Anishabad, Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sudarshana Jyoti D/o- Late Jamuna Prasad R/o- 558/C,Railway Gandak
Colony Ps- Gandak Colony Dist- Samastipur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 1682 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nishant Kumar, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lalan Kumar, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 1908 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Birendra Narayan Sharma, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 63048 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nishant Kumar, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-07-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present quashing petitions preferred under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as to quash the order dated
30.04.2022
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1,
Patna, where Criminal Revision 271 of 2021 preferred by
petitioners was dismissed, challenging the order dated
19.07.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1682 of 2023 dt.07-07-2025
3/18
Patna, where learned J.M. took cognizance for the offences
punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, (in
short ‘IPC‘) and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
against all the petitioners in G.R. Case No. 9385 of 2018
arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 158 of 2018.
3. The case of prosecution speaks in brief that
O.P. No. 2 namely Sudarshana Jyoti alleged that her marriage
was arranged with Nishikant in 2017. She claimed that
Nishikant forcibly established physical relations with her. Later
on 19.12.2017, both applied for marriage registration under
the Special Marriage Act at Samastipur, but Nishikant
subsequently refused to attend the scheduled marriage in
January 2018, whereafter her family members approached
Nishikant’s family. It is alleged that, despite having already
received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards marriage related
expenses, the accused persons further made an unlawful
demand of Rs. 15,00,000/- as dowry, in contravention of the
provisions of the D.P. Act. The marriage was scheduled again
for 09.02.2018, but when the informant’s relatives visited the
petitioners’ house with gifts, they remained adamant about
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1682 of 2023 dt.07-07-2025
4/18
their dowry demand and continued harassment. A complaint
was also made to the Mahila Police Station, but it was in vain.
The informant further alleged that on 24.08.2018, when she
visited the petitioners’ house again requesting her marriage,
Nishikant and other family members assaulted her, causing
severe injuries, including a fracture in her finger. They also
allegedly refused to return Rs. 1 lakh and threatened to kill
her. It was subsequently revealed to the informant that
accused Nishikant was in the process of finalizing marriage
with another woman for dowry, and that he had a consistent
pattern of deceitfully inducing marriage by misrepresenting
his age and income, with the ulterior motive of extracting
dowry, thereby committing offences punishable under the
I.P.C. & D.P. Act, 1961.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present
case. It is submitted that an FIR was lodged on 15.10.2018,
with an unexplained delay of 7 months after the alleged
incident. Prior to this FIR, the informant had filed a complaint
on 09.03.2018 at Mahila Thana, Patna only accusing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1682 of 2023 dt.07-07-2025
5/18
Nishikant (now deceased) of refusing marriage. It is also
submitted that there were no allegations of sexual assault or
dowry against other family members. It is also submitted that
the FIR has been lodged as an afterthought, maliciously
implicating Nishikant’s entire family.
5. It is further submitted that upon due
investigation, the police did not find any credible evidence
establishing the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged
offence. A final form/closure report (Supplementary
Chargesheet No. 61/2019 dated 31.07.2019) was submitted,
exonerating the petitioners. It is pointed out from the perusal
of the FIR and from the statement of the informant as
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the Court took cognizance
on 19.07.2021 for offences punishable under Section 417
I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Countering the same, petitioners filed a criminal revision (Cr.
Revision No. 271 of 2021), but it was dismissed by the
Sessions Court on 30.04.2022.
6. It is submitted that the informant was
previously married and subsequently divorced, a fact which
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1682 of 2023 dt.07-07-2025
6/18
she allegedly concealed during the matrimonial discussions
with accused Nishikant. It is further submitted that the
informant purportedly created and used a false matrimonial
profile with the intent to mislead, and upon discovering the
said concealment, misrepresentation, Nishikant declined to
solemnize the marriage. It is pointed out that the informant
misused her legal knowledge (being a lawyer) to pressurize
petitioners through police complaints and implicated
petitioners due to ulterior and oblique motives. It is also
submitted that Nishikant had also filed a complaint with the
police and N.H.R.C. before lodging this FIR, but authorities
failed to act upon.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners questioned
the validity of the informant’s injury report, pointing out
inconsistencies in dates and legibility, claiming that the
reports have no connection with the alleged assault. It is also
argued that as a lawyer, the informant cannot credibly claim
to have been “allured” or “cheated.”
8. It is submitted that Nishikant was compelled to
institute a marriage petition under pressure; however, upon
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1682 of 2023 dt.07-07-2025
7/18
learning of the informant’s previous marriage, he declined to
proceed with the matrimonial alliance. It was further
submitted that he was subsequently arrested in October,
2018, which resulted in his incarceration for approximately
one year. During the period of his judicial custody, he
developed renal issues & ultimately succumbed to the illness
while still in jail. It is further alleged that despite several years
of trial from 2019-2024, the informant failed to produce any
witnesses, revealing her malicious intent.
9. While travelling over the argument learned
counsel submitted that two criminal complaint cases were
lodged by Nishi Kant (deceased) i.e., Complaint Case No.
3738/2019 pending before learned A.C.J.M. IV, which now
becomes infructuous and other one lodged by Dhananjay
Kumar Sharma i.e., Complaint Case No. 600 of 2020 pending
before learned JMFC-22 will also be withdrawn within four
weeks. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted by learned
counsel that continuing with the present criminal proceeding
qua petitioners before learned trial court would only amount
to abuse of the process of court of law, and, therefore, same
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1682 of 2023 dt.07-07-2025
8/18
be quashed and set aside. 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 as reported in 2023 SCC Online SC
1083. In support of his submission, learned counsel also
relied upon the legal reports of Hon’ble Supreme Court as
available through Ansaar Mohammad Vs. State of
Rajasthan and Another [2022 SCC Online SC 886] &
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra
and Another [2019 SCC OnLine SC 1073].
10. While concluding the argument, learned
counsel for the petitioners submitted that all six petitioners in
the above three cases are in-laws, i.e., the first brother,
Shreekant (deceased Nishikant’s brother) his wife Indu Bala,
and their children Saurabh Suman @ Saurabh Kumar and
Komal Sakshi & the second brother Shashikant (deceased
Nishikant’s brother) and his wife, Anita Devi @ Anita Prasad.
They have no fault and were implicated only out of their
relation with Nishikant (now deceased). It is submitted that it
is a case where marriage was admittedly not solemnized
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1682 of 2023 dt.07-07-2025
9/18
between the parties, and merely on the basis of oral
submission that one of the co-accused subsequently
demanded dowry this case was lodged, which appears non-
convincing. Therefore, no prima-facie case appears to be
made out for the offence punishable under Section 417 of the
IPC, hence in view of observations as discussed aforesaid in
the Abhishek case (supra), the impugned cognizance order
is fit to be quashed/set aside.
11. Heard learned APP for the State.
12. O.P. No. 2 present in person along with her
learned counsel. It is pointed out by learned counsel that
marriage could not solemnized due to the demand of dowry.
However, he could not dispute the fact that O.P. No. 2 made
all such steps for the solemnization of her marriage with the
deceased brother of petitioner no. 1 namely Shashikant (Cr.
Misc. No. 1908 of 2023) & petitioner Shreekant (Cr. Misc.
No. 63048 of 2024) and when realizing the past conduct of
O.P. No. 2 marriage could not solemnized an allegation under
Section 376 of the Cr.P.C. for committing rape was raised
against the bride Nishikant (now deceased) and he was sent
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1682 of 2023 dt.07-07-2025
10/18
to jail and remained there for more than one year, and during
the custody period, he developed kidney disease and died in
jail. It is pointed out that Nishikant/deceased, also lodged a
case against O.P. No. 2, which must be withdrawn or
quashed. O.P. No. 2 who is present in person before this
Court, approved this fact that she has no objection for
quashing of the present criminal proceedings against
petitioners, if two criminal cases, i.e., Complaint Case No.
3738/2019 pending before learned A.C.J.M. IVth and
Complaint Case No. 600 of 2020 pending before learned
JMFC-22 against her be quashed/set aside also.
13. It would be apposite to reproduce para no(s).
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)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1682 of 2023 dt.07-07-2025
11/186 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1682 of 2023 dt.07-07-2025
12/18
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1682 of 2023 dt.07-07-2025
13/18
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 State of Haryana and Ors. Vs.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1682 of 2023 dt.07-07-2025
14/18
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1682 of 2023 dt.07-07-2025
15/18constitute 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 accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1682 of 2023 dt.07-07-2025
16/18engrafted 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.’
14. Considering the aforesaid factual and legal
submission, it transpires that petitioners are in-laws facing
general and omnibus allegations in the background of the
admitted fact that the marriage of O.P. No. 2 never
solemnized with the deceased brother of petitioners
Shreekant and Shashikant. It also appears that in retaliation
petitioners also lodged two criminal cases i.e., Complaint Case
No. 3738/2019 pending before learned A.C.J.M. IVth and
Complaint Case No. 600 of 2020 pending before learned
JMFC-22. The demand of dowry also appears very much
general and omnibus qua all the above named petitioners, and
they appear implicated only out of their relation with the
deceased bride, Nishikant, with whom the marriage of O.P.
No. 2 was about to be solemnized.
15. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1682 of 2023 dt.07-07-2025
17/18submission and also by taking a guiding note of Abhishek
Case (supra), the impugned order dated 30.04.2022 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Patna in Cr. Rev No.
271 of 2021 along with, the impugned cognizance order dated
19.07.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class,
Patna, in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 158 of 2018
qua all above named petitioners in aforesaid Cr. Misc. Cases
i.e., Cr. Misc. No. 1682 of 2023, Cr. Misc. No. 1908 of
2023 & Cr. Misc. No. 63048 of 2024 are hereby set-
aside and quashed.
16. Accordingly, all above three mentioned
quashing petitions stand allowed.
17. Taking note of the submission as advanced by
O.P. No. 2 and learned counsel for petitioners, the two cases
as lodged by petitioners and their relative against O.P. No. 2
i.e., Complaint Case No. 3738/2019 pending before learned
A.C.J.M. IVth and Complaint Case No. 600 of 2020 pending
before learned JMFC-22 is also hereby quashed/set aside to
secure the ends of justice by exercising the power under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1682 of 2023 dt.07-07-2025
18/18
18. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the all
concerned trial courts forthwith, as indicated aforesaid.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
S.Tripathi/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 19.07.2025 Transmission Date 19.07.2025
[ad_1]
Source link