Patna High Court
Mujahid Ashraf @ M. Mujahid Ashraf vs The State Of Bihar on 3 April, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69977 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-25 Year-2023 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Araria
======================================================
Mujahid Ashraf @ M. Mujahid Ashraf Son of Late Hasan Saleh Resident of
R-874/A, 2nd Floor, Gali No. 7, Zakir Nagar, Police Station - Zakir Nagar,
New Delhi- 110025. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Adeeba Anjum Wife of Mujahid Ashraf @ M. Mujahid Ashraf, D/O Samidur
Rahman R/O Vill.- Azad Nagar, ward no. 20, P.S.- Araria, Dist.- Araria.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Thakur Brajesh Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mohammed Arif, APP
For the opposite party no. 2: Md. Naushad Uzzoha
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-04-2025
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Md. Naushad Uzzoha, learned counsel appeared for
opposite party no. 2.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that dispute between parties, now stands compromised
against permanent alimony of Rs. 11 lacs, out of which 5 lacs
already paid to opposite party no. 2. It is pointed out that
settlement arrived between the parties before the Mediation
Centre of District Legal Service Authority, Araria. It is further
submitted that parties are governed by their personal law being
Muhammadan and they already dissolved their marriage in terms
of their personal law. It is submitted that in view of aforesaid, no
further disputes or any differences now appears available between
the parties and, therefore, continuing with this proceedings before
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69977 of 2024 dt.03-04-2025
the learned trial court would only amount to abusing the process of
the court of law and, therefore, same be set aside/quashed.
4. In support of his aforesaid submission learned counsel
relied upon the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available
through Abhisek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083.
5. It would be apposite to reproduce Mediation's Report
of District Legal Service Authority, Araria, which is as under:-
"5 e/;LFkrk dsUnz]
ftyk fof/kd lsok izkf/kdkj]
vjfj;kA
fo'k;%& CR. MISC No.-77045/2023 yafcr ekuuh;
mPp U;k;ky; iVuk ¼lacaf/kr efgyk Fkkuk dkaM
la0&25@2023 ACJM 1st Araria½ vUnj nQk
341]342]498¼A½]379]307]504]506@34 Hkk0 n0fo0 ,oa 3@4
ngst izfr'ks/k vf/kfu;eA
vfHk;qDr@vkosnd dk uke o irk%&
¼1½ eqtkfgn v"kjQ mQZ ,e eqtkfgn v"kjQ]
firk&Lo0 glu lkysg] lk0&R874/A2nd Q~yksj xyh
ua0&7] tkfdj uxj U;w fnYyh&110025
lwfpdk@foi{kh dk uke o irk%&
(1) vnhck vatqe ifr&ekstkfgn v"kjQ
firk&lehnqj jgeku] lk0&vktkn uxj] okMZ ua0&20]
Fkkuk&vjfj;k] ftyk&vjfj;kA
mijksDr okn ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds CRIMINAL
MISCELLANEOUS NO.-77045/2023 ds mHk;i{kksa
ds chp e/;LFkrk gsrq e/;LFkrk dsUnz vjfj;k dks lanfHkZr
fd;k x;k gS] ftls Jheku~ lfpo ftyk fof/kd lsok izkf/kdkj
vjfj;k }kjk eq>s ¼dqekjh fo.kk izf"kf{kr e/;LFkrk½ mHk;i{kksa
ds chp e/;LFkrk gsrq vfHkys[k lanfHkZr fd;k x;kA mHk;i{kksa
dks dk;kZy; }kjk lwpuk fuxZr dh xbZA
e/;LFkrk okn esa mHk;i{kksa dh igyh mifLFkfr %& 27-02-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69977 of 2024 dt.03-04-2025
mHk;i{kksa dh ,dy l= dh e/;LFkrk %& 02 cSBd
mHk;i{kksa dh la;qDr l= dh e/;LFkrk %& 05 cSBd
vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk uke %& eks0 bQ~r[kk:jZgeku
eks0ua0 %& 9430674799
foi{kh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk uke %& "kSdr g;kr
eks0ua0 %& 7781882960
foi{kh vnhck vatqe frfFk&06-03-2024 dks e/;LFkrk l= esa
mifLFkr gqbZ iqu% vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk Jheku~
lfpo ftyk izkf/kdkj] vjfj;k ds vuqefr ij vkosnd
Video Conferencing ds }kjk mifLFkr gq, frfFk 02-04-
2024 ls yxkrkj mHk;i{kksa dh 5 cSBd ,dy l= o la;qDr
l=] fd] dh xbZA
frfFk 05-05-2024 dks mHk;i{k mifLFkr gq, iqu% mHk;i{k
dh ,dy l= o la;qDr l= dh e/;LFkrk dh xbZ iqu% 22-
05-2024 dks mHk;i{k mifLFkr gS ,oa mHk;i{kksa ds }kjk
laf/k@le>kSrk ds "krksZa dks fy[kok;k x;kA
laf/k@le>kSrk dk "krZ%&
1- mHk;i{k jkth&[kq"kh ls One time settlement ds rgr~
dqy 11]00000@& ¼X;kjg yk[k½ :i;k esa ;g r; dj jgs
gSa] fd ,d nqljs ds oSokfgd thou ls vyx gks x, gSA
ftles fd igyh fdLr frfFk 18-04-2024 dks vnhck vatqe ds
ukfer psd ICICI cSad dk ftldk [kkrk
la0&038701504603 ,oa psd la0&504603 dks vnhck vatqe
dks eks0 5]00000@&¼ikWap yk[k½ :i;k dk izkfIr djk;k x;k
gS ,oa "ks'k 6]00000@& ¼N% yk[k½ :i;k dk Hkqxrku] foi{kh
vnhck vatqe }kjk lacf/kr okn esa lk{; dh frfFk esa foi{kh
vnhck vatqe o muds firk lehnqj jgeku ds lk{; izLrqr
djus ds oDr vnhck vatqe dks vkosnd eqtkfgn v"kjQ }kjk
djk fn;k tk;sxkA
2- mHk;i{k foi{kh vnhck vatqe vkosnd eqtkfgn v"kjQ ls
oSokfgd thou ls vyx gksus ds dkj.k] rykd] ,oa
nsueksgj ,oa bÌr dk [kpkZ] "kknh ds volj ij fn;k x;k
rksgQk esa tks Hkh lkeku fn;k x;k Fkk] lHkh ds ,ot esa
dqy ;g 11]00000@& ¼X;kjg yk[k½ :i;k nksuksa i{kksa
gSfl;r ds eqrkfcd r; fd;s gSa] ftlesa mHk;i{k jkth&[kq"kh
ls lgefr iznku dj jgs gSa ,oa mHk;i{k e/;LFkrk dsUnz esa
fyf[kr rkSj ij vkosnu fn, gSa tks e/;LFkrk vfHkys[k esa
nkf[ky gSA
3- ;g fd mHk;i{k ds }kjk iw.kZ Hkqxrku dk ysu&nsu gks tkus
ds i"pkr~ e/;LFkrk izfronsu ds vk/kkj mHk;i{kksa ds chp
yacfr eksdnek vkt frfFk rd lHkh esa laf/k ds vk/kkj ij
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69977 of 2024 dt.03-04-2025
mHk;i{k eksdnek dk fu'iknu djk ysaxsA blesa mHk;i{kksa dks
dksbZ vkifRr ugha gSA
4- ;g fd mHk;i{kksa ds chp 11]00000@& ¼X;kjg yk[k½
:i;k dk ysunsu iw.kZ gksus ij mHk;i{k ,d nqljs ds oSokfgd
thou] ;k ysunsu dk dksbZ nkok nkoh Hkfo'; esa ugha djsaxsA
mHk;i{kksa us jkth&[kq"kh ls mijksDr laf/k@le>kSrk ds "krksZa
dks fy[kok;k ,oa i<+dj lqudj le>dj vius vius fo}ku
vf/koDrk ds le{k viuk gLrk{kj cuk;kA
bl izdkj mHk;i{kksa dh e/;LFkrk lQy jghA
g0vkosnd g0 foi{kh
e/;LFkrk izfrosnu ds lkFk vfHkys[k e/;LFkrk dsUnz
dks lanfHkZr dh tkrh gS] ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; iVuk esa
e/;LFkrk izfrosnu dh izkfIr ,oe~ Jheku~ ,0lh0ts0,e0
izFke] vjfj;k ds ;gkWa Hkh e/;LFkrk izfronsu dh dkWih
lizsf'kr dh tk;A
dqekjh oh.kk
izf"kf{kr e/;LFk
ftyk fof/kd lsok izkf/kdkj
vjfj;k
frfFk&
6. 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69977 of 2024 dt.03-04-2025
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 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69977 of 2024 dt.03-04-2025
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 disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69977 of 2024 dt.03-04-2025
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. The petitioner appeared in person before this Court,
whereas despite of direction, opposite party failed to appear.
However, the learned counsel Md. Naushad Uzzoha appearing for
opposite party no. 2 received bank draft of balance Rs. 6 lacs on
behalf of opposite party no. 2 as submitted by learned counsel
appearing for petitioner before the Court itself. The details of bank
draft is (Draft no. "515227" dated 04.03.2025 drawn on ICICI
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69977 of 2024 dt.03-04-2025
Bank, Delhi Lawrence Road).
8. In view of aforesaid, as parties settled their disputes
and differences out of mediation proceedings as discussed above,
therefore, continuing with present criminal proceeding before the
trial court would amount to only abusing of process of court of law,
in view of legal ratio as available through Abhishek' Case
(supra), accordingly, FIR bearing Araria Mahila P.S. Case No. 25
of 2023 is hereby set aside and quashed with all its consequential
proceedings qua petitioner.
9. Let copy of this order be sent to the trial court,
without delay.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
veena/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 04.04.2025
Transmission Date 04.04.2025
