—
Patna High Court
Shashi Bhushan @ Chhotan vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 4 April, 2024
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35682 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-836 Year-2015 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
Shashi Bhushan @ Chhotan, son of Sri Badri Narayan Ram, resident of
village – Kulhariya, P.S. – Koilwar, District – Bhojpur.
… … Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Babita Devi, D/o Sri Bijay Ram, wife of Durga Prakash, presently
resident of village – Kulhariya, P.S. – Koilwar, District – Bhojpur. Other
address – Village-Bayapur, P.S. – Maner, District – Patna.
… … Opposite Parties
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Surj Bansh Roy, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-04-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This application has been filed for quashing the
order dated 25.08.2015 passed by learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in Complaint Case No.
836(C)/2015 registered under Section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the marriage
of the complainant was solemnized with the co-accused
namely, Durga Prakash on 25.04.2012 and at the time of
marriage, her father had given clothes, utensils, gold and
cash etc. worth Rs. 3,95,000/- to him and his family
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35682 of 2016 dt.04-04-2024
2/6
members. The complainant further alleged that after her
marriage, petitioner (Dewar) alongwith all the co-accused
persons started torturing her mentally as well as physically
and further demanded Rs. One Lakh as dowry. The
complainant further states that her parents and relatives
tried to pacify the matter and shows their inability to fulfill
their demand of Rs. One Lakh, at this stage, her husband
and petitioner abused them and ousted them from the
house. The complainant states that after some days, all the
accused persons denied to keep her in matrimonial home.
After few days, when the complainant alongwith her brother
reached at her sasural, her husband and the petitioner
again abused them and started fighting with her brother as
also snatched her child and ousted them from the house.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is the brother-in-law (Dewar) of the
complainant. Learned counsel submits that there is general
and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. Learned
counsel further submitted that petitioner is living
separately much prior to the occurrence with opposite party
no. 2 and her husband and, as such, there is no occasion to
remain connected with their daily and domestic affairs. It is
submitted that out of relation, petitioner falsely implicated
in the present case due to ulterior and oblique motive.
Learned counsel has relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Abhishek vs. State of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35682 of 2016 dt.04-04-2024
3/6
Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1083.
5. Despite service of notice, opposite party no.2
has failed to join the present proceeding.
6. It would be apposite to reproduce para-13, 14,
15, 16 17 of the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Abhishek (supra), which reads 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.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35682 of 2016 dt.04-04-2024
4/6not 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35682 of 2016 dt.04-04-2024
5/6disclose 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 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 the aforesaid factual and legal
submissions, as the petitioner is the brother-in-law (Dewar)
of the complainant/opposite party no. 2, who is facing
general and omnibus allegation regarding cruelty as
alleged to be committed upon opposite party no. 2 and
further by taking note of the guiding note of the legal report
of Hon’ble Apex Court, as reported through Abhishek
(supra), the impugned order dated 25.08.2015 passed by
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35682 of 2016 dt.04-04-2024
6/6
Complaint Case No. 836(C)/2015 is set-aside and quashed,
accordingly.
8. This application is allowed.
9. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated
to the learned trial court immediately.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 05.04.2024
Transmission Date 05.04.2024
