Patna High Court
Imran Ansari And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 26 June, 2024
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24852 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2449 Year-2015 Thana- WEST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT
District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Imran Ansari Son of Sarif Mian @ Sarif Ansari.
2. Sarif Mian @ Sarif Ansari, son of Late Gafur Mian.
3. Sahabun Nesha @ Shahadan Nesha, Wife of Sarif Ansari @ Sarif
Mian. All are Resident of Bhatwaliya, P.S.- Majhaulia, District- West
Champaran.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Aasama Khatoon @ Aajam Khatoon, Wife of Imran Ansari, Daughter
of Rafique Ansari, Resident of Village- Satvirwa, P.S.- Majhaulia,
District- West Champaran.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bhagya Narayan Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 26-06-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed to quash the
order dated 07.01.2017 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Bettiah
in Complaint Case No. 2449(C) of 2015, whereby and
whereunder learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the
offence under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24852 of 2017 dt.26-06-2024
complainant has filed a complaint petition dated 31.10.2015,
in which she alleged that at the time of marriage her father
had given Rs. 1,00,000/- as dowry and other house hold
articles to the in-laws people. She alleged that one daughter
was born from the said wedlock and due to said reason, in-
laws people started torturing her.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that petitioner no. 1 is the husband
and petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and
mother-in-law of the complainant. Learned counsel pointed
out that the marriage between the parties now dissolved as
per Muslim customary rights/personal law and thereafter
both parties solemnized their marriage as per their choice. It
is submitted that issue regarding maintenance was also
settled in terms of compromise arrived between the parties,
which is also apparent from the order dated 29.06.2018
passed in Matrimonial Case No. 24/2015 as passed by
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West Champaran,
Bettiah, wherein it appears that opposite party No. 2
received permanent alimony/Dainmohar of Rs. 3,00,000/-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24852 of 2017 dt.26-06-2024
from this petitioner. It is further submitted by learned
counsel that petitioner No. 1 further agreed to pay Rs.
3000/- per month to daughter namely, Nasreen Khatoon.
5. It is submitted that in view of
compromise/settlement as arrived between the parties as the
dispute is purely private in nature continuing with the
proceeding before the learned trial court would only amount
to abuse of the process of the court of law. In support of his
submission, learned counsel relied upon the legal report of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Abhishek vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC Online SC
1083.
6. Despite service of notice, learned counsel for
opposite party No.2 failed to join the present proceeding.
7. Learned A.P.P. for the State is present.
8. 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 (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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24852 of 2017 dt.26-06-2024
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24852 of 2017 dt.26-06-2024
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24852 of 2017 dt.26-06-2024
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24852 of 2017 dt.26-06-2024
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge."
9. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal
submission, as the matter for maintenance and other aspects
appears compromised between the parties where both
parties after getting their marriage dissolved in terms of
their personal law, solemnized their marriage and further by
taking a guiding note of Abhishek case (supra), order
taking cognizance dated 07.01.2017 passed by learned
S.D.J.M., West Champaran, Bettiah in connection with
Complaint Case No. 2449(C) of 2015 with all its
consequential proceedings qua above-named petitioners is
hereby quashed and set aside.
10. Accordingly, this application stands allowed.
11. Let a copy of this judgment of sent to the
learned trial/concerned court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 29.06.2024
Transmission Date 29.06.2024
