—

Patna High Court

Nitu Devi And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 1 April, 2024

Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha

Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40003 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2013 Thana- UDAKISHUNGANJ District- Madhepura

1. Nitu Devi, W/o Late Jagdish Mandal
2. Amod Kumar @ Amod Mandal, S/o Late Jagdish Mandal
3. Babita Devi, W/o Shri Manoj Mandal
4. Manoj Mandal S/o Late Jagdish Mandal
All R/o Dharhara P.S.- Banmanakhi, District-Purnea.
5. Chandrama Devi @ Charan Devi, W/o Shri Satyanarayan Mandal
6. Satya Narayan Mandal, S/o Late Sundar Mandal
Both R/o Mohinai,P.S.- Sarsi, District Purnea.

… … Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ranju Devi, W/o Pramod Mandal, D/o Shri Ram Deo Mandal, R/o Village-
Raghunathpur Pakaiya,P.S.- Udakishunganj, District -Madhepura.

… … Opposite Parties

Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Prerna Rishi, Advocate
Mr. Patanjali Rishi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Madhuranand Jha, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Anant Kumar-1, Advocate

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-04-2024

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned APP appearing on behalf of 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 taking cognizance dated

15.07.2013

passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40003 of 2015 dt.01-04-2024
2/12

Magistrate, Udakishunganj, Madhepura in G.R. No.624

of 2013, Tr. No. 3958 of 2013 arising out of

Udakishunganj P.S. Case No.73 of 2013, whereby the

learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance

for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342,

323, 452, 354, 509, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code

(for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act against the petitioners and others.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the

informant/opposite party no.2, namely, Ranju Devi

married to one Pramod Mandal on 19.07.2009 in

accordance with Hindu Rites and Rituals at Sinheswar

Temple and during the marriage, her father gave

sufficient gifts including cash, ornaments, utensils and

cloths worth Rs.5,00,000/- as per his capacity and

thereafter, the informant joined her matrimonial home,

where she remained normal for two months. Thereafter,

the in-laws of the informant started to torture her. After

living at her matrimonial home for about four months,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40003 of 2015 dt.01-04-2024
3/12

her father took her to maternal home. After one month,

elder brother-in-law of the informant, namely, Manoj

Mandal brought her back to her matrimonial home. The

informant/O.P. No.2 further alleged that the petitioners

along with others started assault and torture her and

made a demand to bring one Maruti car and cash of

Rs.5,00,000/- to which the informant/O.P. No.2

objected. Thereafter, she was subjected to torture. When

the informant/ O.P. No.2 told her husband that her

father is not capable of meeting the demand of dowry,

he also used to torture her. The informant further

alleged that whenever the husband of her sister-in-law

(petitioner no.6) used to come to Dharhara, he also used

to instigate the others to compel her to get a Maruti car

and cash. The informant further alleged that at 12:00 in

the midnight, after finding her alone, the petitioner,

namely, Satya Narayan Mandal entered into her room

and started to sexually molest her to which when the

informant objected, he told her to keep quiet and on one
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40003 of 2015 dt.01-04-2024
4/12

occasion, petitioners as well as her husband assaulted

her at midnight and ousted her out of the house and told

that without fulfiling demand of dowry, she would not

allow to enter into the house, whereafter informant was

compelled to live at the neighbour’s house. From where,

the informant, informed her father about the entire

incident, who came over there and took the informant

back to her parental home. The informant has further

alleged that fifteen days prior to lodging of the FIR, her

husband as well as the petitioner no.6 used to come to

Dharhara, he also used to instigate the others to compel

her family members/parents to get a Maruti car and

cash, they got violent and started abusing and assaulting

the informant/O.P. No.2 and told that as they had

insulted them, hence, as long as the demand of dowry

was not fulfilled, their daughter would not be taken back

to her matrimonial home.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioners that matter has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40003 of 2015 dt.01-04-2024
5/12

compromised between the parties and in terms of

compromise payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten

Lakh) would be made as and when the Opposite Party

No. 2 will provide her bank details to the petitioners. He

further submits that immediately on supplying of bank

details, payment of aforesaid amount of Rs.10,00,000/-

would be made to opposite party No.2.

5. Learned APP duly assisted by learned

counsel for the opposite party no.2 affirmed that the

matter has been compromised between the parties

before the Mediation Centre, Patna High Court and, as

now, no dispute is pending between the parties. Learned

counsel for opposite party no.2 undertakes to provide

the bank details of Opposite Party No.2 to the

petitioners positively by 08.04.2024.

6. It would be apposite to re-produce the

settlement terms of Mediation Centre, Patna High Court,

which is as under :-

“Patna High Court Mediation Centre
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40003 of 2015 dt.01-04-2024
6/12

Memorandum of Agreement
Mediation Proceeding No.709 of 2023
[Arising out of Cr. Misc. No.40003 of 2015]
An agreement made on 23.02.2024 at the High
Court Patna Mediation Centre, between,

1. Nitu Devi, wife of Late Jagdish Mandal.

2. Amod Kumar @ Amod Mandal, Son of Late
Jagdish Mandal,

3. Babita Devi, wife of Shri Manoj Mandal

4. Manoj Mandal, son of Late Jagdish Mandal, all
resident of Dharhara, P.S.-Banmankhi, District-
Purnea.

5. Chandrama Devi @ Charan Devi, wife of Shri
Satyanarayan Mandal

6. Satya Narayan Mandal, son of Late Sundar
Mandal, both resident of Mohinai, P.S.-Sarsi,
District-Purnea.

… …. Petitioners
And
Ranju Devi, wife of Pramod Mandal, D/o Shri Ram
Deo Mandal, resident of village-Raghunathpur
Pakaiya, P.S.-Udakishunganj, District-Madhepura.

….. … Opposite Party No.2.

Both the parties appeared with their respective
counsels are present. Both the parties come to
the amicable settlement on the following terms
and conditions:-

1. Both the parties come to the amicable
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40003 of 2015 dt.01-04-2024
7/12

settlement against the total one time settlement
amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Lakhs)

2. That the first instalment of Rs.5,00,000/-

(Rupees Five Lakh) will be deposited in the Bank
Account of Opposite Party No.2, which will be
supplied at the time of filing of Divorce petition
on mutual consent.

3. That the second instalment of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) will be given
to Opposite Party No.2 at the time of quashing
of all the Criminal Cases pending.

4. That the third and final payment of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) will be given
to Opposite Party No.2 at the time of passing
Decree of Divorce.

5. This settlement shall be full and final
settlement and no claim in future shall be made
against each other.

6. That the above contents of the agreement
have been read over and explained to us in Hindi
which we have fully understood them.

7. That in the above terms and conditions a
settlement has been arrived at between the
parties and both have signed in presence of their
learned counsels, who have also put their
signature on this agreement.”

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40003 of 2015 dt.01-04-2024
8/12

7. 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 vs. State of

Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC Online SC

1083, 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 whether 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40003 of 2015 dt.01-04-2024
9/12

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 proceedings 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40003 of 2015 dt.01-04-2024
10/12

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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40003 of 2015 dt.01-04-2024
11/12

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 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.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40003 of 2015 dt.01-04-2024
12/12

8. In view of aforesaid factual and legal

discussions, as matter has been compromised in

mediation proceeding between the parties, as discussed

above, continuing with the legal proceedings would only

amount to abuse of process of law.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order taking

cognizance dated 15.07.2013 passed by learned Sub-

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Udakishunganj, Madhepura

in G.R. No.624 of 2013, Tr. No.3958 of 2013 arising

out of Udakishunganj P.S. Case No.73 of 2013 with all

its consequential proceedings are, hereby, quashed and

set aside qua petitioners.

10. The application stands allowed.

11. Let a copy of this judgment be

communicated to the learned Trial Court immediately.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 05.04.2024
Transmission Date 05.04.2024