Disposed

Tripurari Kumar Yadav @ Tripurari Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC24 Nov 2025CR. MISC./44166/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing petition against discharge-rejection order in a dowry case. Proceedings against petitioner no. 3 were quashed for lack of specific allegations; petitioner no. 1 (husband), who agreed to settle amicably, was referred to district mediation with interim protection from coercive action for six months.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings and order dated 16.05.2025 quashed qua petitioner no. 3; matter referred to mediation with six-month interim protection for petitioner no. 1; application disposed of.

Tripurari Kumar Yadav @ Tripurari Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44166 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-2017 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Bhagalpur

¶3

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

¶4

Tripurari Kumar Yadav @ Tripurari Kumar aged 41 years, Male,

¶5

Diwakar Kumar Yadav @ Diwakar Kumar aged 41 years,

¶6

Govind Kumar Yadav @ Govind Kumar aged 32 years,

¶7

All three sons of Late Krishna Murari Prasad Yadav, Resident of VillageSindhua Toli (Gulzarbagah), P.S.- Alamganj, District- Patna.

¶8

... ... Petitioner/s

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Bihar

¶11

Khooshbu Kumari W/O Tripurari Kumar Yadav @ Tripurari Kumar , D/O Kapil Deo Prasad Yadav At present Quarter No. HB-03 Police Centre Bhagalpur, P.S- Ishakchak, Dist.- Bhagalpur. Permanent Address- D/O Kapil Prasad Yadav R/O Village- Narayanpur, P.S- Bihpur, Distt.- Bhagalpur.

¶12

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶13

============== Appearance :	========================================
For the Petitioner/s	: Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 2	: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate
For the State	: Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, A.P.P.

¶14

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

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT

¶16

Date : 24-11-2025

¶17

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners; learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 and learned APP for the State.

¶18

The petitioners have preferred application under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing of the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhagalpur, in G.R.

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44166 of 2025 dt.24-11-2025 2/9

¶20

Case No.4105 of 2017 by which, the application under Section 262 (1) BNSS filed by the petitioners for discharging them from the charges has been rejected.

¶21

The prosecution story in brief is that the informant was married to Tripurari Kumar Yadav @ Tripurari Kumar (petitioner no. 1) on 01.12.2014 according to Hindu rites and customs. Soon after the marriage, the husband of the informant along with his family members, had started torturing her mentally and physically for demand of dowry of four wheeler. Specific allegation against the petitioner no. 2 is that he had thrown hot tea on the body of the O.P. No. 2 causing burn injury. Aggrieved by the said act of the petitioner and his family members, the O.P. No. 2 has lodged FIR against the petitioner and other co-accused under Sections 498(A), 341, 323, 379, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the allegation primarily arises out of dispute between husband and wife and is not against the society. Petitioner no. 1 is husband of Opposite party no.2 and petitioner nos.2 and 3 are younger brother of the husband of the O.P. No. 2. Learned counsel further submitted that marriage is a sacred ceremony but little matrimonial skirmish suddenly erupts into

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44166 of 2025 dt.24-11-2025 3/9

¶24

hatred and the parties ponder to reconcile their dispute outside the court.

¶25

Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2 and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the opposite party no.2 is being harassed by the petitioners and, as such, the present quashing application is fit to be dismissed. They, however, submitted that a chance be given to the parties to settle their dispute amicably.

¶26

Heard the parties.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

From perusal of the FIR, it is evident that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners no. 3, who is younger brother of the husband of the O.P. No. 2 and allegation against his is general and omnibus.

¶30

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44166 of 2025 dt.24-11-2025 4/9

¶31

It has been held by the Apex Court that 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. The Apex Court 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:-

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

Recently also the Apex Court in the case of Navneesh Aggarwal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

¶35

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44166 of 2025 dt.24-11-2025 5/9

¶36

reported in 2025 INSC 963, has held that the family members of husband should not be roped unnecessarily and face vexatious criminal trial.

¶37

I find that no case under Section 498A and other allied sections of IPC is made out against petitioner no. 3. Accordingly, the entire proceedings along with the order dated 16.05.2025 are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent it relates to petitioner no. 3.

¶38

So far as, petitioner no. 2 is concerned, considering the specific allegation against him in the FIR, who had allegedly misbehaved with the O.P. No. 2 by throwing hot tea on her body causing burn injury, the prosecution against the petitioner no. 2 cannot be interfered.

¶39

Recently, 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 dealing with the cases related to dowry has held that opportunity be given to the parties first to reconcile. Paragraphs no. 23 and 31 are inter alia reproduced hereinafter:-

¶40

“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,

¶41

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44166 of 2025 dt.24-11-2025 6/9

¶42

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 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.

¶43

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.”

¶44

A reference can be taken to law laid down by the

¶45

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

¶46

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44166 of 2025 dt.24-11-2025 7/9

¶47

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.

¶48

In the present case, the petitioners have sought quashing of the order rejecting their discharge petition. Upon perusal of the order, I find that prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. However, strictly following the procedure prescribed under the facts and circumstances of the case will not be in the interest of the parties as well as justice. The present situation force this Court to allow the husband of the O.P. No. 2 (petitioner no.1), who has agreed to settle the dispute with his wife outside the Court and he has willingly desired to appear before the learned District Court on 17.12.2025 at 10:30 AM.

¶49

Learned District Court is directed to take necessary steps to issue notices to the respective parties and upon their appearance, refer the matter before the learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center by fixing a date for appearance of the parties.

¶50

Learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center concerned, upon appearance of the respective parties, shall

¶51

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44166 of 2025 dt.24-11-2025 8/9

¶52

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 six months, till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner no. 1 in connection with the aforesaid case.

¶53

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

¶54

In case of failure on the part of the petitioner no. 1 to appear on 17.12.2025 before the learned District Court or any date fixed by the learned Mediator, without any reason, the interim protection granted to the petitioner no. 1 shall automatically lose its force.

¶55

In case, it is deliberate on the part of the petitioner no. 1 and he fails to reconcile, then in that 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, the interim protection granted to the petitioner no. 1 shall continue and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law.

¶56