—

Patna High Court

Reshma Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 2 April, 2024

Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha

Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32136 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1329 Year-2014 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE
District- Vaishali

1. Reshma Devi, W/o Ram Briksh Singh
2. Manjay Kumar Singh, Son of Ram Briksh Singh.
3. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Son of Ram Briksh Singh
4. Rita Devi, W/o Manjay Kumar Singh
5. Sangita Devi, W/o Sanjay Kumar Singh
All are R/o village-Chak Abdulgani Namurz, P.S. – Jandaha, Distt. – Vaishali

… … Petitioners
Versus

1. The State of Bihar
2. Punam Devi, W/o Sanjeet Singh, R/o Village – Chak Abdulgani Namurz,
P.S. – Jandata, Distt. – Vaishali. At present village – Bikrampur, P.S.-Desari
Sahdei, Distt.-Vaishali

… … Opposite Parties

Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, APP

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

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been filed by the

petitioners for quashing the order of cognizance dated

23.07.2014

passed by learned S.D.J.M. Vaishali at Hajipur

in Complaint Case No.1329 of 2014, whereby the learned

Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32136 of 2016 dt.02-04-2024
2/12

offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for

short ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

against the petitioners and others.

3. The facts in brief suggest that the complainant,

namely, Poonam Devi has filed a complaint case in the court

of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur

alleging therein that complainant/opposite party no.2 was

married to one Sanjeet Singh in the year 2000 as per Hindu

Rites and Customs in which Rs.1,50,000/- along with cloths,

ornaments etc. worth Rs.2,50,000/- was given to the

petitioners. The complainant further alleged that after

sometime, she came to her matrimonial house with her

husband, where complainant came to know about the illicit

relation of her husband with one Sangeeta Devi. After some

time, all the accused demanded dowry of Rs.50,000/- and a

Hero Honda Motorcycle. She further stated in the petition

that her parents shown their incapability to fulfil their

demand, as a result of which, the complainant was mentally

and physically tortured. The complainant has further alleged

that she gave birth of three daughters out of the said
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32136 of 2016 dt.02-04-2024
3/12

wedlock. The complainant further alleged in the complaint

that on 23.04.2014 she came to her matrimonial house with

her husband and three daughters, where again all the

accused persons started to demand Rs.50,000/- and a Hero

Honda Motorcycle and on non-fulfilment of the same, the

complainant along with her three daughter were ousted from

the matrimonial home on 03.05.2014 and accused person

have also snatched her personal and gifted goods. The

complainant further alleged in the complaint that on

05.05.2014, a Panchayati was conducted in which the

accused persons denied to keep her without fulfilment of

demand of dowry.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioners that this petition now survived

against petitioner nos. 2 to 6 only, as petitioner no.1,

namely, Ram Briksh Singh died while pending present

application. It is pointed out by learned counsel that

petitioner no.2 is mother-in-law, whereas petitioner nos.3

4 are brothers of the husband of opposite party no.2 and

petitioner nos. 5 and 6 are the wife of petitioner nos. 3 and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32136 of 2016 dt.02-04-2024
4/12

4. It is submitted that allegation qua cruelty as alleged

through complaint petition is appearing very much general

and omnibus against the petitioners, where their implication

appears only out of relations/family members. It is pointed

out that thrust of allegation is available against husband. It

is further pointed out that the petitioners are living

separately and having no connection with daily and domestic

affairs with opposite party no.2 and her husband. Learned

counsel appearing for petitioners make statement at the Bar

that the matter has been compromised between opposite

party no.2 and her husband and thereafter, they are leading

happily their conjugal life and, as such, continuing with

present proceedings qua petitioners would only amount to

misusing the process of law. In view of aforesaid factual

submission, learned counsel relied upon the legal report of

Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the matter of Abhishek

vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC

Online SC 1083.

5. Despite valid service of notice, the opposite

party no.2 has failed to join the present proceeding.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32136 of 2016 dt.02-04-2024
5/12

6. Learned APP while appearing on behalf of the

State submitted that petitioners being in-laws actively

participated to cause mental cruelty to opposite party no.2 in

terms of the complaint.

7. It would be apposite to re-produce Para-13 to

17 of the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported

in the matter of Abhishek Case (supra), which is 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32136 of 2016 dt.02-04-2024
6/12

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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32136 of 2016 dt.02-04-2024
7/12

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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32136 of 2016 dt.02-04-2024
8/12

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 v. Bhajan Lal, [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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32136 of 2016 dt.02-04-2024
9/12

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.

(3) Where the uncontroverted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32136 of 2016 dt.02-04-2024
10/12

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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32136 of 2016 dt.02-04-2024
11/12

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.”

8. In view of aforesaid factual and legal

submissions, as petitioners are in-laws, having general and

omnibus allegation towards alleged cruelty, moreover, as per

statement of learned counsel appearing for petitioners that

matter appears compromised between the parties and they

are leading their conjugal life happily, accordingly, continuing

with legal proceedings would only amount to misusing the

process of law and, as such, the impugned order dated

23.07.2014 passed by learned S.D.J.M. Vaishali at Hajipur

in Complaint Case No.1329 of 2014 qua petitioners are,

hereby, quashed and set aside.

9. The application stands allowed.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32136 of 2016 dt.02-04-2024
12/12

10. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the

learned trial court forthwith.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-

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