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. MISC. No.17983 of 2024 dt.21-04-2025 4/8 i{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 5/8 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 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 6/8 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. 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 7/8 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 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. S.Tripathi/- (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 22.04.2025 Transmission Date 22.04.2025