—
Patna High Court
Juli Kumari And Anr vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 29 March, 2024
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18655 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2015 Thana- RUPASPUR District- Patna
1. Juli Kumari, wife of Jiwesh Kumar, D/o Bacha Sharma, Resident of village-
Sikandar Pur, P.S.- Bihta, District- Patna
2. Nidhi Kumari, wife of Manish Kumar, D/o Bacha Sharma, resident of
village-Gowai, P.S.- Bikram, District- Patna
… … Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Sindhu Devi, D/o Sri Makeshvar Sharma, Resident of Mohalla-Ram Jay Pal
Nagar, Gola Road, H.N. 161 (near Safi Allam IPS), P.S.- Rupash Pur,
District- Patna
… … Opposite Parties
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Gopal Govind Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anant Kumar, APP
for the Opposite Party No.2: Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-03-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State duly assisted by learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
2. The present application has been filed for
quashing of the order dated 25.07.2015 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur
whereby the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has
taken cognizance for the offences punishable under
Sections 494 and 498-A read with 34 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and process has been
issued against the petitioners in connection with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18655 of 2016 dt.29-03-2024
2/8
Rupashpur P.S. Case No.70 of 2015.
3. The case of the prosecution as per FIR is
that the husband of complainant has solemized second
marriage with another girl illegally with the help of the
petitioners and other co-accused persons named in the
FIR. Informant, namely Sindhu Devi, alleged that her
marriage was solemnized with one Sri Ashutosh Kumar
on 27.02.2009 in accordance with Hindu Rites and
Rituals. She further alleged that a baby girl was born
on 21.02.2010 from said wedlock. Informant further
stated that on 18.03.2015, she along with her father
got information that her husband solemnized second
marriage with one Mintu Kumari with the help of the
petitioners and other co-accused person on 02.12.2014
and after finding information correct, she instituted
present case against the petitioners and other family
members as well as relative of the family of her
husband.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners that apparently
from the narration of the FIR, no prima facie case
made out against the petitioners. It is submitted that
both petitioners are married Nanad (sister-in-law) of
the informant, where marriage of petitioner no.1 was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18655 of 2016 dt.29-03-2024
3/8
solemnized in the year 1998 and marriage of petitioner
no.2 was solemnized in the year 2006 and since then,
they are living separately with their families, having
otherwise no connection with daily and domestic
affairs with the family of the informant and her
husband. It is further submitted that initially the FIR
was lodged under Sections 494/34 of the IPC, as
husband of the informant solemnized his marriage
without getting it dissolved with opposite party no.2
but, after investigation, the charge-sheet was
submitted under Section 498-A of the IPC also, without
having any iota of allegation through written
information available agaisnt petitioners. While
concluding argument, it is pointed out by learned
counsel that prior to this case, a complaint case was
also lodged by opposite party no.2 bearing Complaint
Case No.233(c) of 2013, where learned Trial Court after
inquiry took cognizance for the offence punishable
under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act vide order dated 22.04.2013. It is also
submitted by learned counsel that petitioners were
also arrayed as an accused in said complaint petition.
He further submitted that multiplicity of lodging case is
only reflecting the harassing attitude out of ulterior
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18655 of 2016 dt.29-03-2024
4/8
and oblique motive of opposite party no.2 and,
therefore, the impugned order taking cognizance is fit
to be quashed and set aside. In support of his
submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied
upon legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as passed
in the matter of Abhishek vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1083.
5. Learned APP for the State duly assisted by
learned counsel for opposite party No.2 while opposing
the application submitted that petitioners are married
sisters-in-law. It is submitted that both the petitioners
have actively participated in the occurrence and were
instrumental to solemnized second marriage of
husband of opposite party no.2.
6. It would be apposite to reproduce para-
13, 14, 15, 16 17 of the legal report of Hon’ble
Supreme Court passed in the case of Abhishek Case
(supra), which are as under:-
“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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18655 of 2016 dt.29-03-2024
5/8whether 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.
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.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18655 of 2016 dt.29-03-2024
6/8proceedings 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.
17. In State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and
Ors [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], 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:
‘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.
(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.
(2) Where the allegations in the first
information 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18655 of 2016 dt.29-03-2024
7/8
(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.
(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.
(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.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the Act concerned (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 Act
concerned, 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.”
7. In view of aforesaid factual and legal
submissions and by taking note of fact that both the
petitioners are married sisters-in-law living separately
much prior to the marriage of opposite party no.2 with
their brother namely, Ashutosh Kumar, where from the
narration of written information, no prima facie case
appears to be made out against the petitioners and, as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18655 of 2016 dt.29-03-2024
8/8
such, by taking note of guidelines as available under
guideline nos. (1), (5) and (7) of the legal report of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal
(supra), which was considered by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Abhishek (supra), accordingly,
the impugned cognizance order dated 25.07.2015
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Danapur in connection with Rupashpur P.S.
Case No.70 of 2015 qua petitioners with all it’s
consequential proceedings are hereby quashed and
set aside.
8. The application stands allowed.
9. Let a copy of this judgment be
communicated to the learned trial court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 03.04.2024
Transmission Date 03.04.2024
