—

Patna High Court

Nazma Khatoon And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 2 April, 2024

Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha

Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27107 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2015 Thana- MAHILA PS District- East Champaran

1. Nazma Khatoon Wife of Master Qutubuddin
2. Master Qutubuddin @ Md. Kuttubuddin Son of Late Fattedin Both 1 and 2
Residents of at Dhobia Patti, Purani Chowk, P.S. Gopalganj, District –
Gopalganj.
3. Tabassum Praveen @ Kusum Praveen @ Chhoti Daughter of Master
Qutubuddin, Wife of Afjal Ali Resident of At – Dhobia Patti, Purani Chowk,
P.S. Gopalganj, District – Gopalganj, At present Resident of Village –
Khawaspur, P.S. Basantpur, District – Siwan.
4. Shama Praveen @ Gudiya Daughter of Master Qutubuddin, Wife of
Mahboob Alam Resident of at Dhobia Patti, Purani Chowk, P.S. Gopalganj,
District – Gopalganj, At present resident of Village – Kateya, P.S. Kateya,
District – Gopalganj.
5. Mobinul Haque @ Syed Mobinul Haque Son of Late Nizamuddin Resident
of at – Friends Colony, P.S. Gopalganj, District – Gopalganj.

… … Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Najda Khatoon Wife of Samiuddin, Daughter of Md. Halim Khan Resident
of Village – Lodh Chhapra, P.S. Pipra, District – East Champaran.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Javed Aslam, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nityanand, APP
For the respondent no. 1 : Ms. Kanika, Advocate
For the respondent no. 2 : Mr. Farooq, Advocate

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-04-2024

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the parties.

2. The present application has been filed for

quashing the order dated 26.06.2015 passed by learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27107 of 2016 dt.02-04-2024
2/13

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, in connection with

Motihari Mahila P.S. Case No. 23 of 2015, where

cognizance was taken for the offences under sections

498A, 341, 323, 504, 506, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

3. Prosecution case in brief is that on

06.04.2015

at 6.00 P.M. Najda Khatoon lodged an

information with Motihari Mahila Police Station, stating

that on 01.11.2007, her marriage was solemnized with

Md. Samiuddin as per Islam religion. At the time of

marriage and Bidai, cash of Rs. 1,50,000/-, ornaments

with rupees 70,000/- and other articles worth rupees

1,50,000/- was given. After marriage, she came her

matrimonial house. She gave birth of two female

children, namely, Mariyam Khatoon, aged about five

years and Aisha Khatoon, aged about three years. After

giving birth to second female child, accused persons

including petitioners started threatening to the informant

that they would solemnize marriage of her husband with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27107 of 2016 dt.02-04-2024
3/13

another lady. Her husband mother-in-law, father-in-law,

two Nanads (sisters-in-law) and one Mobinul Haque

under the conspiracy of each other, asked the informant

to bring rupees Two Lacs from his father for the

business of her husband and one motorcycle besides the

furniture. On information, her mother sent one Almira to

her matrimonial house and beg pardon for the rest

amount. Thereafter her husband and family members of

her husband started to torture her in different manner.

They started to make a plan to burn her by poring acid.

On 03.11.2014 her husband, mother-in-law and Nanad

tried to kill her by pressing her neck. On raising alarm,

people gathered and save her. On information, her

brothers came to her matrimonial house. Her brothers

gave an application to the Mahila Police Station,

Gopalganj. The police came her matrimonial house and

brought the accused persons to the police station. The

police asked her husband to bring her to his house,

otherwise he would be sent to jail. On 30.03.2015 her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27107 of 2016 dt.02-04-2024
4/13

husband came to her Maike and assaulted her. He

threatened to give divorce, if his demand could not be

fulfilled.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners that petitioners are in-laws of opposite

party no. 2, against whom, the allegation of cruelty as

alleged alongwith allegation of raising demand for dowry

are appearing very much general and omnibus in nature.

It is submitted that implication of petitioners appears

only out of their relations. Learned counsel submitted

that all petitioners being in-laws living separately with

opposite party no. 2 and her husband, having no

connection with their daily and domestic affairs. While

concluding argument, it is submitted that the matter is

ultimately compromised between the parties i.e. opposite

party no. 2 with her husband and they are living happily

together. Statement in this regard, averred specifically

through counter affidavit dated 28.11.2023. While

concluding the argument, it is submitted that as matter
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27107 of 2016 dt.02-04-2024
5/13

now stands compromised between the parties,

continuing with the process would only amount to

abusing process of law. Learned counsel relied upon a

legal report of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab,

reported in 2012(10) SCC 303 and also State of

Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors., reported

in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335.

5. Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel

Ms. Kanika appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.

2, fairly submitted that matter now stands compromised

between the opposite party no. 2 and her husband,

namely, Md. Samiuddin, who is also one of the co-

accused and they are living together.

6. It would be apposite to re-produce paragraph

nos. 58 and 61 of the Gian Singh Vs. State of

Punjab, reported in 2012(10) SCC 303, which reads

as under:

“58. Where the High Court
quashes a criminal proceeding having
regard to the fact that the dispute
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27107 of 2016 dt.02-04-2024
6/13

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. No doubt,
crimes are acts which have harmful
effect on the public and consist in
wrongdoing that seriously endangers
and threatens the well-being of the
society and it is not safe to leave the
crime-doer only because he and the
victim have settled the dispute
amicably or that the victim has been
paid compensation, yet certain crimes
have been made compoundable in law,
with or without the permission of the
court. In respect of serious offences
like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or
other offences of mental depravity
under IPC or offences of moral
turpitude under special statutes, like
the Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants
while working in that capacity, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27107 of 2016 dt.02-04-2024
7/13

settlement between the offender and
the victim can have no legal sanction
at all. However, certain offences which
overwhelmingly and predominantly
bear civil flavour having arisen out of
civil, mercantile, commercial, financial,
partnership or such like transactions or
the offences arising out of matrimony,
particularly relating to dowry, etc. or
the family dispute, where the wrong is
basically to the victim and 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. The above list is illustrative
and not exhaustive. Each case will
depend on its own facts and no hard-
and-fast category can be prescribed.

61. The position that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27107 of 2016 dt.02-04-2024
8/13

emerges from the above discussion can
be summarised thus : the power of the
High Court in quashing a criminal
proceeding or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is
distinct and different from the power
given to a criminal court for
compounding the offences under
Section 320 of the Code. Inherent
power is of wide plenitude with no
statutory limitation but it has to be
exercised in accord with the guideline
engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to
secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to
prevent abuse of the process of any
court. In what cases power to quash
the criminal proceeding or complaint or
FIR may be exercised where the
offender and the victim have settled
their dispute would depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case and no
category can be prescribed. However,
before exercise of such power, the
High Court must have due regard to
the nature and gravity of the crime.
Heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly
quashed even though the victim or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27107 of 2016 dt.02-04-2024
9/13

victim’s family and the offender have
settled the dispute. Such offences are
not private in nature and have a
serious impact on society. Similarly,
any compromise between the victim
and the offender in relation to the
offences under special statutes like the
Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants
while working in that capacity, etc.;
cannot provide for any basis for
quashing criminal proceedings involving
such offences. But the criminal cases
having overwhelmingly and
predominatingly civil flavour stand on a
different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences
arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such
like transactions or the offences arising
out of matrimony relating to dowry,
etc. or the family disputes where the
wrong is basically private or personal in
nature and the parties have resolved
their entire dispute. In this category of
cases, the High Court may quash the
criminal proceedings if in its view,
because of the compromise between
the offender and the victim, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27107 of 2016 dt.02-04-2024
10/13

possibility of conviction is remote and
bleak and continuation of the criminal
case would put the accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme
injustice would be caused to him by
not quashing the criminal case despite
full and complete settlement and
compromise with the victim. In other
words, the High Court must consider
whether it would be unfair or contrary
to the interest of justice to continue
with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding
would tantamount to abuse of process
of law despite settlement and
compromise between the victim and
the wrongdoer and whether to secure
the ends of justice, it is appropriate
that the criminal case is put to an end
and if the answer to the above
question(s) is in the affirmative, the
High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding.”

7. It would further be apposite to re-produce

para 102 of the State of Haryana and Ors. Vs.

Bhajan Lal and Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27107 of 2016 dt.02-04-2024
11/13

Supreme Court Cases 335, which reads as under:

“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 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.

(3) Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or complaint and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27107 of 2016 dt.02-04-2024
12/13

the evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of nay 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 persons 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 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.

(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.”

8. In view of aforesaid factual and legal

submission, as a dispute between the opposite party no.

2 with her husband admittedly compromised, where they
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27107 of 2016 dt.02-04-2024
13/13

are leading their conjugal life happily. Petitioners are in-

laws facing general and omnibus allegation and, in such

circumstances, continuing with the process would only

amount to abusing process of law, accordingly, by taking

guiding notes of Gian Singh’s Case (supra) and

Bhajan Lal’s Case (supra), impugned order of

cognizance dated 26.06.2015 passed by learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, is hereby set aside and

quashed qua petitioners with all its consequential

proceedings.

9. Let copy of this order be sent to the trial

court, without delay.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
veena/-

AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 03.04.2024
Transmission Date 03.04.2024