Rahul Yadav @ Cheta Yadav @ Chaitu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11544 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-126 Year-2024 Thana- PIRPAINTI District- Bhagalpur

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Rahul Yadav @ Cheta Yadav @ Chaitu Kumar Son of Bhonu Yadav Resident of Village - Ram Nagar, P.S. - Pirpainti, District - Bhagalpur

¶5

Risham Kumar @ Resham Kumar @ Risham Son of Bhonu Yadav Resident of Village - Ram Nagar, P.S. - Pirpainti, District - Bhagalpur

¶6

Bhonu Yadav @ Monu Yadav Son of Late Sahdev Yadav Resident of Village - Ram Nagar, P.S. - Pirpainti, District - Bhagalpur

¶7

Sanju Devi Wife of Bhonu Yadav Resident of Village - Ram Nagar, P.S. - Pirpainti, District - Bhagalpur

¶8

Pinki Devi @ Pinki Kumari Wife of Nitesh Yadav @ Nitish Kumar Resident of Village - Batiya Diyara, P.S. - Barari, District - Katihar (wrongly described as P.S. Pirpainti in the F.I.R.)

¶9

Maini Devi @ Savita Devi @ Mina Devi Son of Kisho Yadav @ Krishna Yadav Resident of Village - Ghogha, P.S. - Kahalgaon, District - Bhagalpur

¶10

... ... Petitioner/s

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Bihar Bihar

¶13

Punam Kumari Wife of Rahul Yadav @ Cheta Yadav @ Chaitu Kumar, Daugher of Ramji Yadav Resident of Village - Daulatpur, P.S. - Ishipur Barahat, District - Bhagalpur

¶14

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶15

======================================================

¶16

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ashok Kumar No. 6, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur, A.P.P.

¶17

======================================================

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT

¶19

Date : 04-11-2025

¶20

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶21

petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶22

The present application has been filed under

¶23

Section 528 of BNSS for quashing the order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judaical Magistrate, Bhagalpur in

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11544 of 2025 dt.04-11-2025 2/8

¶25

Pirpainti P.S. Case No.126 of 2024 (G.R. No. 1340/2024) by which learned Chief Judaical Magistrate, Bhagalpur has taken cognizance of offence against the petitioners under Sections 498 A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act.

¶26

The allegation is of subjecting the opposite party no.2 to various sorts of torture due to non-fulfillment of the demand of the dowry.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the learned District Court has not considered that the allegation is not against the society. He further submitted that the material available on record don’t disclose any criminal element and without considering this aspect, the order taking cognizance against the petitioner cannot sustain in the eye of law. He further submitted that petitioner no. 1 is husband of Opposite party no.2, petitioners no.2 is brother-in-law of Opposite party no.2, petitioner no. 3 is fatherin-law of the opposite party no. 2, petitioner no. 4 is mother-inlaw of Opposite party no.2 and petitioners no. 5 and 6 are married sister-in-law ( Nanad ) of Opposite party no.2. Learned counsel further submitted that marriage is a sacred ceremony but little matrimonial skirmish suddenly erupts into hatred and the parties ponder to reconcile their dispute outside the court.

¶28

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11544 of 2025 dt.04-11-2025 3/8

¶29

Both the parties submitted that matter be referred

¶30

for mediation

¶31

Heard the parties.

¶32

It is commonly seen in the society that the entire family members, as well as, relatives are made accused along with the husband to face criminal prosecution. The Apex Court has demarcated the manner in which the complaints are entertained by the learned District Court.

¶33

The law in respect of matrimonial dispute between husband and wife is well settled at the same time, the Apex Court has held that the family members of husband should not be roped unnecessarily and face vexatious criminal trial.

¶34

From perusal of the complaint, it is evident that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners no. 2, 3, 5 and 6, who are brother-in-law, father-in-law, and married sisterin-law ( Nanad ) of the opposite party no. 2 and allegation against them is general and omnibus. In light of the recent judgment of Apex Court in the case of Navneesh Aggarwal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 963, I find that no case under Section 498A/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act is made out against petitioner nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6. Accordingly, the entire proceedings and order taking cognizance dated

¶35

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11544 of 2025 dt.04-11-2025 4/8

¶36

17.10.2024 passed in Pirpainti P.S. Case No.126 of 2024 (G.R. No. 1340/2024) is hereby set aside and quashed to the extent

¶37

it relates to petitioners no. 2, 3, 5 and 6 .

¶38

So far as the petitioner no.1 and 4, who are husband and mother-in-law, are concerned, a reference can be taken to law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Naushey Ali & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78, considering the entirety of matters, particularly dealing with the misuse of Section 498 of IPC, referring to its earlier judgment, finally concluded that offences arising out of matrimonial dispute particularly relating to dowry etc. or a family dispute where wrong is committed to the victim by the offenders and his family, can be settled amicably.

¶39

The matrimonial dispute is not an offense against the society rather a matrimonial dispute is a private conflict between spouses and does not inherently constitute an offence against society, as has been held in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, reported in, (2003) 4 SCC 675, in paragraph nos. 12 and 13 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is as under:-

¶40

“ 12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.

¶41

13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in

¶42

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11544 of 2025 dt.04-11-2025

¶43

5/8

¶44

G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [(2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of 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 other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their 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.

¶45

Recently also, the Apex Court in the case of Mange Ram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.10817 of 2024) , in paragraph nos. 25 and 31 has reiterated that in cases, particularly, related to dowry, opportunity be given to the parties first to reconcile, which inter alia are as follows:-

¶46

“25. This Court, in Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735, has made it clear that family members of the husband ought not to be unnecessarily roped into criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord. The Court observed that it has become a recurring tendency to implicate every member of the husband’s family, irrespective of their role or actual involvement, merely because a dispute has arisen between the spouses. It was further held that where the allegations are bereft of specific particulars, and particularly where the relatives sought to be

¶47

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11544 of 2025 dt.04-11-2025 6/8

¶48

prosecuted are residing separately or have had no connection with the matrimonial home, allowing the prosecution to proceed would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Court noted that criminal law is not to be deployed as an instrument of harassment, and that judicial scrutiny must be exercised to guard against such misuse.

¶49

31. We also refer to Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 wherein this Court observed that where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled, although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. In this regard, a specific reference was made to offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or a family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim but the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable. The High Court may, within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.”

¶50

The petitioner no. 1, who is husband and petitioner no. 4, who is mother-in-law of the O.P. No. 2 may proceed to settle the strained matrimonial relationship of her son and daughter-in-law (O.P. No.2) amicably, the learned District Court shall also strive till last to settle the dispute outside the Court.

¶51

Petitioner no. 1 along with petitioner no. 4 and

¶52

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11544 of 2025 dt.04-11-2025 7/8

¶53

opposite party no. 2 have agreed to appear before the learned District Court on 27.11.2025 at 10:30 AM.

¶54

Learned District Court is directed to take necessary steps to refer the matter before the learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center.

¶55

Learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center concerned shall make his/her best efforts to settle the dispute between the parties amicably and thereafter submit his/her report before the concerned learned District Court, well within a period of four months, till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners no. 1 and 4 in connection with the aforesaid case.

¶56

In case, the parties resolve their dispute amicably, then the proceeding is required to be dropped in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court as referred hereinabove.

¶57

In case of failure on the part of the petitioners no. 1 and 4 to appear on 27.11. 2025 before the learned District Court or any date fixed by the learned Mediator, the interim protection granted to the petitioners no. 1 and 4 shall automatically lose its force.

¶58

In case, it is deliberate on the part of the petitioners no. 1 and 4 and he fails to reconcile, then in that

¶59

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11544 of 2025 dt.04-11-2025 8/8

¶60

case, the learned District Court shall proceed with the trial. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the opposite party no.2 to reconcile, then in that case, continuing with the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of court and the interim protection granted to petitioners no. 1 and 4 shall continue and the proceeding against him is required to be dropped in accordance with law.

¶61

Accordingly, the present quashing application stands disposed of.

¶62

(Purnendu Singh, J)

¶63

Niraj/-

¶64

AFR/NAFR	N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE	N/A
Uploading Date	05.11.2025
Transmission Date	05.11.2025

Rahul Yadav @ Cheta Yadav @ Chaitu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Yadav @ Cheta Yadav @ Chaitu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Kaushal Tiwary @ Kaushal Kumar Tiwari @ Munmun Tiwary and Ors. Vs The State of Bihar and Anr.

Sima Devi @ Sima Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Vijay Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Surya Prakash Vs The State of Bihar

Shanti Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs The State of Bihar through Vigilance