Patna High Court
Vivek Singh vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 9 May, 2024
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40249 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-419 Year-2015 Thana- BUXAR COMPLAINT CASE District-
Buxar
======================================================
Vivek Singh Son of Suryabhan Singh, Resident of Village- Brahmanpur, P.S.-
Chandvak District- Jonpur U.P.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar and Anr
2. Soni Singh, Daughter of Sidheshwar Singh @ Lalan Singh, Resident of
Village- Rajpur, P.S.- Rajpur, District- Buxar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bachan Jee Ojha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sri Jharkhandi Upadhyay
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-05-2024
1. The present application preferred for
quashing the order of taking cognizance dated
27.04.2016
passed by learned S.D.J.M., Buxar, in Case
No. 419/2015, Tr. No. 2424/2016, whereby and where
under the learned S.D.J.M., Buxar has taken cognizance
under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code (in short
"IPC") and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The basis of the case is that one Soni
Singh (O.P. No. 2) filed a complaint case before learned
C.J.M., Buxar on 11.05.2015 to the effect that her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40249 of 2017 dt.09-05-2024
marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on
06.05.2011 and thereafter, she started to reside in
matrimonial house, where after some time, accused
persons started to demand a car as dowry and when the
said demand was not fulfilled, she was being tortured. It
is further alleged that her husband, who is in Air-force
service, has illicit relation with a lady, who is resident of
Banglore. At last, it is stated that on 31.05.2014, she
was ousted from the house.
3. With aforesaid allegation as raised through
complaint case bearing No. 404/15, was filed by
complainant before C.J.M., Buxar whereafter, perusal of
record cognizance was taken against petitioner through
impugned order for the offences under Section 498 A of
IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that both parties dissolved their
marriage by way of mutual consent and settled all their
differences amicably regarding dowry, maintenance etc.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40249 of 2017 dt.09-05-2024
through matrimonial case no. 362/2022 dated
18.12.2022 as filed before the court of learned Judge
Family Court, Buxar. It is pointed out that as matter
amicably settled between the parties continuing with the
process would only amount to abuse the process of court
of law.
5. In support of his submissions, learned
counsel relied upon the legal reports of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as reported in the matter of Abhishek
vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1083.
6. Heard learned APP Mr. Jharkhandi
Upadhyay appearing for the State.
7. Learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2,
while opposing the application supported the factum of
mutual divorce and also to settle the various issues
amicably arises out of marriage between the parties.
8. It would be apposite to reproduce relevant
Paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 14 ,5, 16 & 17 of Abhishek
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40249 of 2017 dt.09-05-2024
Case (supra), which read as:-
12. The contours of the power to quash criminal
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are well defined. In V.
Ravi Kumar v. State represented by Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu [(2019) 14 SCC
568], this Court affirmed that where an accused seeks
quashing of the FIR, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the
High Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to
enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the
allegations in the complaint. In Neeharika Infrastructure (P).
Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 330 of
2021, decided on 13.04.2021], a 3-Judge Bench of this
Court elaborately considered the scope and extent of the
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was observed that the
power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, such standard
not being confused with the norm formulated in the context
of the death penalty. It was further observed that while
examining the FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought,
the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability
or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made therein,
but if the Court thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters
of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, and more
particularly, the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P.
Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) and State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], the Court
would have jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40249 of 2017 dt.09-05-2024
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40249 of 2017 dt.09-05-2024
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 Bhajan Lal (supra), 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
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 the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40249 of 2017 dt.09-05-2024
(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."
9. In view of aforesaid legal and factual
submissions as parties dissolved their marriage by their
mutual consent where all dispute arises out of said
marriage between the parties appears settled amicably
and also further by taking guiding note of Abhishek
case (supra), impugned order of taking cognizance
dated 27.04.2016 with all its consequential proceedings,
qua, petitioner arising thereof as passed in connection
with Case No. 419/2015, Tr. No. 2424 of 2016 pending
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40249 of 2017 dt.09-05-2024
before learned S.D.J.M., Buxar is hereby quashed and
set aside.
10. Hence, this application stands allowed.
11. TCR (Trial Court Records), if any, be
returned to learned trial court alongwith the copy of this
judgment.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
archana/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.05.2024
Transmission Date 13.05.2024
