Patna High Court
Surayabhan Singh And Anr vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 16 May, 2024
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45326 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-419 Year-2015 Thana- BUXAR COMPLAINT CASE District-
Buxar
======================================================
1. Surayabhan Singh, son of late Ram Shlok Singh.
2. Deojhari Devi, wife of Suryabhan Singh.
Both are resident of Village : Bhramnpur, P.S.- Chandvak, Distt. Jonpur
(U.P.)
At present resident : 492c Kailash Nagar, Gurga Vihar Jajmau, Kanpur
208010.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Soni Singh, Daughter of Sidheshwar Singh @ Lalan Singh, Resident of
Village - Rajpur, P.S. - Rajpur, Distt. Buxar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Naveen Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-05-2024
At the outset it is important to mention
that joint status of O.P. No. 2, who received the notice
was filed on affidavit, which suggests that notice was
served validly upon O.P. No. 2.
2. The present application preferred for
quashing the order of taking cognizance dated
27.04.2016
passed by learned S.D.J.M., Buxar, in
Complaint Case No. 419 (C) of 2015, Trial No. 2424 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45326 of 2017 dt.16-05-2024
2016, whereby cognizance was taken for the offences
under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code (in short
"IPC") and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
against the petitioners.
3. Despite service of notice O.P. No. 2 fails
to join the present court proceedings.
4. The basis of this 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
marriage was solemnized with the son of petitioners 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
Bangalore. At last, it is stated that on 31.05.2014, she
was ousted from the house.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45326 of 2017 dt.16-05-2024
petitioners submitted that both parties dissolved their
marriage by way of mutual consent and settled all their
differences amicably regarding dowry, maintenance etc.
through Matrimonial Case No. 362 of 2022 dated
18.12.2022 as filed before the court of learned Principal
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. It is submitted that petitioner
no. 1 is father-in-law and petitioner no. 2 is mother-in-
law of O.P. No. 2, living separately and having no
connection with their daily and domestic affairs. It is also
submitted that allegation against these petitioners is also
very general and omnibus in nature, where implication
appears with oblique and ulterior motive, with harassing
attitude.
6. In support of his submissions, learned
counsel relied upon the legal report of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as reported in the matter of Abhishek
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45326 of 2017 dt.16-05-2024
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh as reported in 2023
SCC OnLine SC 1083.
7. Learned APP appearing on behalf of State
opposes the application.
8. It would be apposite to reproduce relevant
Paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 of Abhishek
Case (supra), which read as under:-
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45326 of 2017 dt.16-05-2024
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45326 of 2017 dt.16-05-2024
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45326 of 2017 dt.16-05-2024
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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45326 of 2017 dt.16-05-2024
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45326 of 2017 dt.16-05-2024
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45326 of 2017 dt.16-05-2024
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45326 of 2017 dt.16-05-2024
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45326 of 2017 dt.16-05-2024
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 arising out of said
marriage between the parties appears settled amicably,
petitioners are in-laws 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, both above named
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45326 of 2017 dt.16-05-2024
petitioners arising thereof as passed in connection with
Complaint Case No. 419/2015, Trial. No. 2424 of 2016
pending 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.)
S.Tripathi/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 17.05.2024
Transmission Date 17.05.2024
