Ravi Kumar Bhagat v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC7 Jan 2026CR. MISC./31339/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court; CR. MISC. No. 31339 of 2018; quashing of cognizance order; Section 323 IPC; Section 498(A) IPC; Section 12(1)(b) Hindu Marriage Act; ex parte nullity decree; Matrimonial Case No. 441 of 2013; Family Court Bhagalpur; complaint case Samastipur; opposite party non-appearance; prosecution after divorce-notice service; Sandeep Kumar, J; decided 07-01-2026.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Rosera, Samastipur in C.R. No. 1053 of 2015 (cognizance under Sections 323 and 498(A) IPC). ¶¶16

Ravi Kumar Bhagat Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Rosera, Samastipur in C.R. No. 1053 of 2015 (cognizance under Sections 323 and 498(A) IPC).

¶¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Rosera, Samastipur in C.R. No. 1053 of 2015, taking cognizance under Sections 323 and 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, should be quashed.

¶¶6

Court's answer

The respondent no. 02 is not interested in continuing with the marriage; she chose not to appear in the divorce proceeding, whereby ex-parte divorce was granted to the petitioner, and again chose not to appear in the present case, the prosecution having been launched only after notice in the divorce proceedings was served upon her.

¶¶11

Ratio / Principle

In view of the above circumstances, the quashing application is allowed.

¶¶14

Key takeaways

The order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Rosera, Samastipur in C.R. No. 1053 of 2015 is hereby quashed.ratio¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Sandeep Kumar, J), Criminal Miscellaneous No. 31339 of 2018, decided 07-01-2026 — Quashing allowed. The Court quashed the order dated 19.05.2017 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Rosera, Samastipur in C.R. No. 1053 of 2015, by which cognizance had been taken under Sections 323 and 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner in the Samastipur complaint case (PS Case No. 1053 of 2015). Ground: the petitioner had filed Matrimonial Case No. 441 of 2013 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur under Section 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act; opposite party no. 2, though noticed, did not appear and the marriage was declared null and void ex parte by judgment dated 25-7-2015; she had instituted the complaint case two months prior to that order, and the prosecution was launched only after notice in the divorce proceedings was served upon her; she again chose not to appear in the present case, whereupon the Court held she was not interested in continuing the marriage and allowed the application.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31339 of 2018

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1053 Year-2015 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Samastipur

¶3

====================================================== Ravi Kumar Bhagat ... ... Petitioner/s Versus State Of Bihar and Anr. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶4

8 07-01-2026

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Service of notice upon the opposite party no. 02 is treated to be valid and she has chosen not to appear.

¶6

This application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the lerned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1^st , Rosera, Samastipur in C.R. No. 1053 of 2015 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section 323 and 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

¶7

The learned counsel for the petitioner straight away draws the attention of this Court to page-17 of the quashing application and submits that the petitioner herein had filed Matrimonial Case No. 441 of 2013 in the court of learned

¶8

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31339 of 2018(8) dt.07-01-2026 2/3

¶9

Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur, in which the OP No. 2 was impleaded as respondent under Section 12(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, to declare the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the OP No. 2 as null and void on grounds mentioned in the petition. It is next submitted that notices were issued upon the OP No. 2 by the learned Family Court in Matrimonial Case No. 441 of 2013, but the OP No. 2 did not appear, as such, the case was decided ex parte and the marriage was declared null and void by a judgment dated 25-72015.

¶10

The learned counsel next submits that the OP No. 2 was aware of the pendency of the matrimonial case, as such, she instituted the present false complaint case two months prior to the passing of the order in the aforesaid matrimonial case. It is further submitted that to the knowledge of the petitioner till date, the OP No. 2 has not challenged the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur, in Matrimonial Case No. 441 of 2013.

¶11

From the aforesaid submissions, it appears that the respondent no. 02 is not interested in continuing with the marriage and therefore she has chosen not to appear in the divorce proceeding and therefore ex-parte divorce was granted

¶12

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31339 of 2018(8) dt.07-01-2026 3/3

¶13

to the petitioner. Even in the present case, the opposite party no. 02 has chosen not to appear and the present prosecution has been launched against the petitioner only after the notice in the divorce proceedings was served upon the opposite party no. 02.

¶14