Quashed¶39

Kanhaiya Choudhary @ Kanhaiya Lal Choudhary @ Kanhaya Choudhary v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC18 Nov 2025CR. MISC./24901/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR and cognizance order; Section 528 BNSS; Sections 498(A)/34 IPC; cruelty by husband; second/void marriage during subsisting first marriage; marriage not dissolved in accordance with law; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 categories; abuse of process; malicious prosecution arguments; Ara Muffasil P.S. Case No.77 of 2024; Bhojpur; Patna High Court 2025; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Ara Muffasil P.S. Case No.77 of 2024 and the entire proceedings therein quashed and set aside; the application under Section 528 BNSS stands disposed of. ¶39

Kanhaiya Choudhary @ Kanhaiya Lal Choudhary @ Kanhaya… — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

FIR in Ara Muffasil P.S. Case No.77 of 2024 and the entire proceedings therein quashed and set aside; the application under Section 528 BNSS stands disposed of.

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the order taking cognizance dated 17.02.2025 and the FIR in Ara Muffasil P.S. Case No.77 of 2024 are liable to be quashed under Section 528 BNSS. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

In view of the facts and circumstances and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), the FIR in connection with Ara Muffasil P.S. Case No.77 of 2024 along with the entire proceeding is quashed and set aside.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

Even though the complainant (O.P. No.2) developed a relationship with the petitioner, it will not be considered a valid marriage because she has not dissolved her marriage with her first husband Ram Ayodhya Choudhary in accordance with law.

¶36

Key takeaways

No case for allegation under Section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Purnendu Singh, J), Criminal Miscellaneous No.24901 of 2025, decided 18-11-2025. Petitioner filed an application under Section 528 BNSS to quash the order taking cognizance dated 17.02.2025 (Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate - VIth, Bhojpur at Ara) in Ara Muffasil P.S. Case No.77 of 2024, whereby cognizance of offences under Sections 498 (A)/34 IPC was taken against him. The complainant (O.P. No.2) admitted in the FIR that she was married to Ram Ayodhya Choudhary, who, without taking divorce from her, developed an illicit relationship with another woman and performed a second marriage, leading her to lodge a matrimonial case against him. Holding that the complainant's relationship with the petitioner could not be treated as a valid marriage since her first marriage stood undissolved, and not dissolved in accordance with law, the Court found that no case under Section 498 (A) IPC was made out against the petitioner. Applying the categories laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, the Court quashed and set aside the FIR along with the entire proceeding and disposed of the application.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24901 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-77 Year-2024 Thana- ARA MUFFSIL District- Bhojpur

¶3

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

¶4

Kanhaiya Choudhary @ Kanhaiya Lal Choudhary @ Kanhaya Choudhary S/o- Radha Mohan Choudhary Village- Sarangpur Ps- Ara Muffasil DistBhojpur

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar Bihar

¶8

Chanamuni Devi W/o- Ram Ayodhya Choudhary Village- Sarangpur Ps- Ara Muffasil Dist- Bhojpur

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance :

¶11

For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Malti Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary,APP

¶12

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT

¶13

Date : 18-11-2025

¶14

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶15

The petitioner has preferred application under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 17.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate - VIth, Bhojpur at Ara in Ara Muffasil P.S. Case No.77 of 2024 by which cognizance has been taken has been taken of offence against the petitioners under Sections 498 (A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that from the very perusal of the FIR no case is made out against the petitioner under Sections 498

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24901 of 2025 dt.18-11-2025 2/5

¶18

(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Referring to the provision of Section 498A he submitted that the allegation can be made only when the husband or relatives of the husband of the woman subject the woman to cruelty. In the present case the informant, who has claimed as the wife of the petitioner, had admitted that she was already married to one Ram Ayodhya Choudhary ten years ago. She is aged about 32 years and she has developed a strained relationship with her husband the said Ram Ayodhya Choudhary, who allegedly also developed illicit relationship with another woman. Learned counsel further submitted that no case is made out under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner in absence of any evidence on record, that the O.P. No.2, even before getting separated from her husband Ram Ayodhya Choudhary, has illegally performed marriage with the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that he has been given information that the O.P. No.2 has lodged criminal cases against several other persons also and just to harass the petitioner, who is aged about 21 years and taking advantage of his immature age has roped in the matrimonial case on a false accusation and as such, continuation of the prosecution will be malicious and vexatious in nature.

¶19

The law in this regard is well settled by the Apex

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24901 of 2025 dt.18-11-2025 3/5

¶21

Court in case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors . reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and the FIR is fit to be

¶22

quashed. The Apex Court in para-102 has held as under:

¶23

“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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cogizable 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.

¶26

(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.

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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.

¶29

(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

¶30

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24901 of 2025 dt.18-11-2025 4/5

¶31

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. (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.”

¶32

Per contra, learned APP appearing on behalf of

¶33

the State submitted that there is no infirmity in order taking cognizance under Sections 498 (A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which has been taken on the basis of the material collected in course of investigation.

¶34

Heard the parties.

¶35

Having considered the rival submissions made

¶36

on behalf of the parties and from perusal of the very content of the FIR, in which the O.P. No.2 has admitted that she was married to one Ram Ayodhya Choudhary and the said Ram Ayodhya Choudhary before taking divorce from the O.P. No.2 developed illicit relationship with another girl and performed second marriage with her. In that regard the O.P. No.2 has lodged matrimonial case against her husband, the said Ram Ayodhya Choudhary. In such circumstances, even though she has developed relationship with the petitioner, it will not be considered as valid marriage because she has not desolved her marriage with her first husband Ram Ayodhya Choudhary, in

¶37

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24901 of 2025 dt.18-11-2025 5/5

¶38

accordance with law.

¶39

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as, the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Bhajan Lal (supra), I find that no case for allegation under Section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. As such, the FIR in connection with Ara Muffasil P.S. Case No.77 of 2024 along with entire proceeding is hereby

¶40

quashed and set-aside.

¶41

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

¶42

(Purnendu Singh, J)

¶43

Ashishsingh/-

¶44

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	22.11.2025
Transmission Date	22.11.2025

Kanhaiya Choudhary @ Kanhaiya Lal Choudhary @ Kanhaya Choudhary v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhaiya Choudhary @ Kanhaiya Lal Choudhary @ Kanhaya Choudhary 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

Baidhnath Singh Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.

Alpana Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Ajit Shah @ Ajit Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Ratan Kumar Shah @ Ratan Kumar Saha Vs The State of Bihar

Shail Devi @ Shail Kumari Devi Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Kamini Kumari Vs The State of Bihar