Mithilesh Chandra Deo @ Mithilesh Chandra Dev Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34535 of 2023

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1253 Year-2021 Thana- KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE District- Katihar

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

Mithilesh Chandra Deo @ Mithilesh Chandra Dev Son of Pramod Keshri Resident of Village- Murhan, near Kali Asthan, PS- Sabaur (Goradih), District- Bhagalpur

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Aakanksha Keshri @ Aakanksha Kumari Daughter of Rajesh Keshri Resident of Village- Sabda Pothia, PS- Falka, District Katihar

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Swapnil Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 11-04-2025

¶11

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of

¶12

the parties.

¶13

2. Present petition is being filed on behalf of the

¶14

petitioner for quashing of order dated 24.03.2022 as passed in Complaint Case No. 1253 of 2021 by learned S.D.J.M., Katihar, whereby and whereunder the learned

¶15

SDJM took cognizance under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against petitioner

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34535 of 2023 dt.11-04-2025 2/10

¶17

3. That the prosecution case as alleged through

¶18

complaint is that O.P no.2 is the married wife of the petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 22.04.2019 and on said occasion dowry of Rs. 25 lakh was paid to the petitioner. Thereafter, the O.P no.2 joined her matrimonial home on 23.04.2019, where petitioner and his father misbehaved with her. It is further alleged that during stay at matrimonial home the petitioner never established sexual relation with O.P. No. 2 and thus she was put in extreme mental and physical cruelty. It is further alleged that petitioner and other family members further demanded dowry of Rs 10 lakh from the parents

¶19

of O.P. No. 2, which upon refusal, O.P no. 2 was not only assaulted but also abused. Thereafter, O.P no.2 went to Moran (place of posting of petitioner), where the petitioner at the instance of the family members caused miscarriage of O.P. No. 2 due to which she was hospitalized. Besides that, at her service place, the petitioner also given a knife blow on her hand, mark of

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34535 of 2023 dt.11-04-2025 3/10

¶21

which is still visible. It is further stated that the O.P. No. 2 was under the impression that good sense would prevail, but the behavior of the petitioner and in-laws did not change. Thereafter, the O.P. No. 2 made a complaint before the police at Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra, Purnea, where the petitioner become ready to take her to his place of posting on 06.09.2021 at Assam but on 21.09.2021, she was given some medicine due to which her pregnancy was terminated. She any how managed to come back to her aunts house. Thereafter, she lodged a complaint case no. 1253 of 2021 before the court of Ld. C.J.M Katihar, who transfer the matter to the Ld. S.D.J.M Katihar, for inquiry and trial.

¶22

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that matter appears compromised between the parties against the permanent alimony of Rs. 27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakh). In this context, it is submitted that parties also dissolved their marriage by way of mutual consent through Matrimonial

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34535 of 2023 dt.11-04-2025 4/10

¶24

Suit No. 324 of 2024 dated 12.12.2024, where by the judgment of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar, the marriage between the parties declared dissolved. It is submitted that from the said judgment it transpires that O.P. No. 2 already received permanent alimony of Rs. 27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakh) and in aforesaid fact, continuing of the present proceedings before court below would only amount to abuse of the process of the Court of law and, therefore, same be quashed/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

¶25

of Madhya Pradesh as reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083.

¶26

5. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 also supported the argument as advanced by learned counsel for petitioner that the parties resolved their dispute and differences, amicably.

¶27

6. In view of aforesaid, it would be apposite to

¶28

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34535 of 2023 dt.11-04-2025 5/10

¶29

reproduce Paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 14 ,15, 16 & 17 of

¶30

Abhishek case (supra) , which read as:-

¶31

12. The contours of the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are well defined. In V. Ravi Kumar v. State represented by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu [(2019) 14 SCC 568], this Court affirmed that where an accused seeks quashing of the FIR, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in the complaint. In Neeharika Infrastructure (P). Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021, decided on 13.04.2021], a 3-Judge Bench of this Court elaborately considered the scope and extent of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, such standard not being confused with the norm formulated in the context of the death penalty. It was further observed that while examining the FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made therein, but if the Court thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, and more particularly, the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], the Court would have jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.

¶32

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

¶33

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34535 of 2023 dt.11-04-2025 6/10

¶34

this score. 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

¶35

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34535 of 2023 dt.11-04-2025 7/10

¶36

would have to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.

¶37

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.

¶38

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 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.

¶39

17. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court had set

¶40

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34535 of 2023 dt.11-04-2025 8/10

¶41

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:

¶42

“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.

¶43

(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.

¶44

(2) Where the allegations in the first informant 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.

¶45

(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.

¶46

(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

¶47

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34535 of 2023 dt.11-04-2025 9/10

¶48

of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶49

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent persons can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶50

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (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 concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶51

(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.”

¶52

7. In view of aforesaid factual and legal submissions

¶53

as parties resolved their disputes and differences amicably,

¶54

where their marriage stands dissolved under mutual consent, in view of Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 against

¶55

the permanent alimony of Rs. 27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakh), which already appears received by O.P. No. 2, accordingly, by taking a guiding legal note of Abhishek case (supra), the quashing order dated 24.03.2022 as passed in Complaint Case No. 1253 of

¶56

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34535 of 2023 dt.11-04-2025 10/10

¶57

2021 by learned S.D.J.M., Katihar is hereby quashed/set

¶58

aside qua petitioner.

¶59

8. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.

¶60

9. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the

¶61

learned trial court forthwith.