Himalya Singh Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20583 of 2023

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Kaimur (Bhabua)

¶3

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

¶4

MRS. GARIMA SINGH Wife of Yatendra Nath Singh R/o Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar Arjuganj, Distt.- Lucknow, P.O. and P.S.- Arjunganj, Uttar Pradesh, Pin Code - 226002.

¶5

Rahul @ Shakti Bhan Singh @ Rahul Singh Son of Late Rana Pratap Singh R/o 285/241, Karehata, P.O.- Aishbagh, P.S.- Rajendra Nagar, Distt.Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, Pin Code - 226004.

¶6

... ... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar

¶9

Mrs. Gayan Bharti @ Nikki Singh Wife of Himalaya Singh D/o Narendra Kumar Singh, R/o Village - Akodi, P.O. and P.S.- Ramgardh, Bhabua (Kaimur), P.S.- Kaimur, Bihar.

¶10

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶11

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

¶12

with

¶13

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 20638 of 2025

¶14

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Kaimur (Bhabua)

¶15

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

¶16

Himalya Singh S/o Rana Pratap Singh R/o Vill.- Khesara No. 884, Sai Data Road Pushp Sadan, P.S. Sushant Golf city (Arjunganj), PO Arjunganj, Dist.Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh).

¶17

Pushpa Singh W/o Late Rana Pratap Singh R/o Vill.- Khesara No. 884, Sai Data Road Pushp Sadan, P.S. Sushant Golf city (Arjunganj), PO Arjunganj, Dist.- Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh).

¶18

... ... Petitioner/s

¶19

Versus

¶20

The State of Bihar

¶21

Mrs. Gayan Bharti @ Nikki W/o Himalaya Singh, D/o Narendra Kumar Singh R/o -Village Akodi, P.O. and P.S. - Ramgardh, Kaimur at Bhabhua, District- Kaimur,

¶22

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶23

====================================================== Appearance : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 20583 of 2023) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashutosh Nath, Adv. Mr. Amritanshu Dangi, Adv. Ms. Aarohi M, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhaskar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 20638 of 2025)

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025 2/18

¶25

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashutosh Nath, Adv. Mr. Amritanshu Dangi, Adv. Ms. Aarohi M, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhaskar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

Date : 22-04-2025

¶27

CR. MISC. No. 20583 of 2023

¶28

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of

¶29

the parties.

¶30

2. Present petition is being filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of order dated 04.01.2023, as passed by learned Addl. Distt & Session Judge - I Cum Special Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Sessions Trial No. 258/2022, Mahila P.S. Case No. 20 of 2021, where the learned court below rejected the discharge petition of the petitioners, preferred under section 227 of the Cr.P.C.

¶31

3. As per case of prosecution, the marriage of the brother of the petitioners with respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 08.03.2019 at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, within two years, the said marriage entered into rough waters and the tensions in the family escalated

¶32

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025 3/18

¶33

to such a level that, the mother-in-law of the O.P. no. 2 lodged an FIR no. 81 of2021 dated 21.02.2021 in P.S. Sushant Golf City, Lucknow, against the O.P. no. 2. Thereafter, the brother of the petitioners filed a matrimonial case seeking divorce from O.P. no. 2, vide matrimonial case number 768 of 2021, filed under section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, before the court of learned Principal Judge Family Courts, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh on 02.03.2021. That O.P. no. 2, in retaliation and counter blast to the aforeesaid divorce petition, filed a written complaint before the Mahila Thana, Kaimur at Bhabhua.

¶34

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that matter appears compromised between the parties against the permanent alimony of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh). In this context, it is submitted that marriage of parties also stands dissolved by way of mutual divorce through Matrimonial Suit No. 30 of 2025 dated 27.01.2025, where by the

¶35

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025 4/18

¶36

judgment of learned Principal Judge cum, Family Court, Kaimur (Bhabhua), 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. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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

¶37

of Madhya Pradesh as reported in 2023 SCC OnLine

¶38

SC 1083.

¶39

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

¶40

6. In view of aforesaid, it would be apposite to reproduce Paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 14 ,15, 16 & 17 of

¶41

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025 5/18

¶42

Abhishek case (supra) , which read as:-

¶43

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.

¶44

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

¶45

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025 6/18

¶46

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.

¶47

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025 7/18

¶48

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.

¶49

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.

¶50

17. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court had set out, by way of illustration, the broad categories of cases in which the inherent power under

¶51

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025 8/18

¶52

Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised. Para 102 of the decision reads as follows:

¶53

“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.

¶54

(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.

¶55

(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.

¶56

(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.

¶57

(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.

¶58

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025 9/18

¶59

(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.

¶60

(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.

¶61

(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.”

¶62

7. In view of aforesaid factual and legal submissions

¶63

as parties resolved their disputes and differences amicably, where their marriage stands dissolved under mutual consent, in view of Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 against

¶64

the permanent alimony of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh), which already appears received by O.P. No. 2, accordingly, by taking a guiding legal note of

¶65

Abhishek case (supra), order dated 04.01.2023 as passed in Sessions Trial No. 258/2022, Mahila P.S. Case No. 20 of 2021 by learned Addl. Distt & Session Judge -

¶66

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025 10/18

¶67

I Cum Special Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua is hereby

¶68

quashed/set aside qua petitioners, with all its consequential proceedings.

¶69

8. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.

¶70

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

¶71

learned trial court forthwith.

¶72

CR. MISC. No. 20638 of 2025

¶73

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of

¶74

the parties.

¶75

2. Present petition is being filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of order dated 26.04.2022 as passed in Mahila P.S. Case No. 20 of 2021 by learned SDJM, Kaimur at Bhabhua, through which cognizance against petitioner was taken for offence permissible under Section 498A, 313, 406/34 of IPC and ¾ of the Dowry Act.

¶76

3. As per case of prosecution, the marriage of the petitioner no. 1 with respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 08.03.2019 at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter,

¶77

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025 11/18

¶78

within two years, the said marriage entered into rough waters and the tensions in the family escalated to such a level that, the mother-in-law of the O.P. no. 2 lodged an FIR no. 81 of2021 dated 21.02.2021 in P.S. Sushant Golf City, Lucknow, against the O.P. no. 2. Thereafter, petitioner no. 1 filed a matrimonial case seeking divorce from O.P. no. 2, vide matrimonial case number 768 of 2021, filed under section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, before the court of learned Principal Judge Family Courts, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh on 02.03.2021. That O.P. no. 2, in retaliation and counter blast to the aforesaid divorce petition, filed a written complaint before the Mahila Thana, Kaimur at Bhabhua.

¶79

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that matter appears compromised between the parties against the permanent alimony of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh). In this context, it is submitted that marriage of parties also stands dissolved by way of mutual divorce through Matrimonial

¶80

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025 12/18

¶81

Suit No. 30 of 2025 dated 27.01.2025, where by the judgment of learned Principal Judge cum, Family Court, Kaimur (Bhabhua), 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. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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

¶82

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

¶83

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

¶84

In view of aforesaid, it would be apposite to

¶85

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025 13/18

¶86

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

¶87

Abhishek case (supra), which read as:-

¶88

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.

¶89

13. Instances of a husband's family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings

¶90

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025 14/18

¶91

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) 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

¶92

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025 15/18

¶93

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.

¶94

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.

¶95

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

¶96

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025 16/18

¶97

circumspection, to try and read between the lines.

¶98

17. In Bhajan Lal (supra), 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:

¶99

“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.

¶100

(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.

¶101

(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.

¶102

(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.

¶103

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not

¶104

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025 17/18

¶105

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.

¶106

(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.

¶107

(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.

¶108

(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.”

¶109

7. In view of aforesaid factual and legal

¶110

submissions as parties resolved their disputes and differences

¶111

amicably, where their marriage stands dissolved under mutual consent, in view of Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 against the permanent alimony of Rs. 25,00,000/-

¶112

(Rupees Twenty Five Lakh), which already appears received by O.P. No. 2, accordingly, by taking a guiding

¶113

legal note of Abhishek case (supra), order dated

¶114

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20583 of 2023 dt.22-04-2025 18/18

¶115

26.04.2022 as passed in Mahila P.S. Case No. 20 of 2021 by learned SDJM, Kaimur at Bhabhua is hereby

¶116

quashed/set aside qua petitioners, with all its consequential proceedings.

¶117

8. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.