Patna High Court
Jitendra Prakash Singh 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.40567 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-194 Year-2022 Thana- BHELDI District- Saran
======================================================
1. Jitendra Prakash Singh, S/O Surendra Prasad Singh, R/O Village-
Gaurichak, P.S- Gaurichak, Distt.- Patna.
2. Surendra Prasad Singh, S/O Late Ramswaroop Singh, R/O Village-
Gaurichak, P.S- Gaurichak, Distt.- Patna.
3. Chandrawati Devi, W/O Surendra Prasad Singh, R/O Village- Gaurichak,
P.S- Gaurichak, Distt.- Patna.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Smriti Raj W/O Jitendra Prakash Singh, D/O Ramjanam Singh R/O Village-
Parsa Jogni, P.S- Bheldi, Distt.- Saran.
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-04-2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present application is being preferred for
quashing the order dated 16.04.2024 as passed in Bheldi P.S.
Case No. 194/2022, Tr. No. 3501/2024, by the learned
A.C.J.M.-XI, Saran at Chapra, whereby and whereunder
learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences
punishable under Section 498A/34 of the I.P.C. and Section
¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners.
3. The brief facts of the case is that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40567 of 2024 dt.03-04-2025
2/9
informant/opposite party no. 2 had submitted her written
report before the police, wherein she categorically alleged that
her marriage was settled with the petitioner no. 1 through
online matrimonial website (Jeevansathi.com) and decided
that marriage would be performed without any dowry. The
informant/O.P. No. 2 alleged that on 28.04.2016 her
marriage was performed with the petitioner no. 1 without any
dowry, but after two months, petitioner no.1 and other co-
accused persons started demanding dowry and tortured her in
different ways. She further alleged that she was also ousted
from her matrimonial home and thereafter she filed the
present F.I.R.
4. After institution of F.I.R., investigation was
started and upon completion of which, police submitted
charge-sheet No. 96/2023 dated 28.02.2023, for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A/34 of the I.P.C. and
Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, for which learned
jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance through impugned
order dated 16.04.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40567 of 2024 dt.03-04-2025
3/9
petitioner no. 1 is husband, whereas petitioner nos. 2 and 3
are father-in-law and mother-in-law of opposite party no. 2.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that during
course of mediation before the Patna High Court Mediation
Centre, both parties have appeared and agreed to live
together as husband and wife and now they are living
together very happily.
7. Arguing further, 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 and prays to quash
the impugned cognizance order, as stated above.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
upon perusal of records, it appears that both parties, in terms
of the order of this Court dated 20.03.2025, have appeared
in-person before this Court and submitted jointly that in
furtherance of mediation proceeding, they are living very
happily together.
9. It would be apposite to reproduce the order of
mediation here below for sake of clarity of facts:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40567 of 2024 dt.03-04-2025
4/9
"Patna High Court Mediation Centre
Memorandum of Agreement
Mediation Proceeding No.1208 of 2023
[Arising out of Cr.Misc. No. 47652 of 2023]
An agreement made on 05.01.2024 at the High Court Patna
Mediation Centre, between, Jitendra Prakash Singh, Son of
Surendra Prasad Singh, resident of Khaira, P.S.-Gaurichak,
District-Patna.
---- --- Petitioner/(First Party).
And
Smriti Raj, Daughter of Ramjanam Singh, resident of Parsa,
Jogni, P.S.-Bheldi, District-Saran.
----- Opposite party (Second Party).
Both parties are agreed to settle the dispute with the consent
and sweet will on basis of the following terms and conditions:-
1. That the petitioner will arrange and independent
accommodation for Opposite Party No.2 (within as early as
possible) where the petitioner and Opposite Party No.2 will live
separately, having no interference of parents and relatives of
both sides.
2. That the parents of petitioner as well as Opposite party No.2
will not interfere with the conjugal life of the petitioner and
Opposite Party No.2, in any matter.
3. That the petitioner being the husband of Opposite Party
No.2 shall keep the Opposite Party No.2 with full dignity and
honour and will give all mental and emotional support to her
and he will never oust or threaten to oust her from her
matrimonial home.
4. That both the parties shall be under obligation to give proper
regard/respect to the parents and relatives of either side, if
they visit them at their residential accommodation.
5. That both the parties would be under obligation to restore
and continue their conjugal life harmoniously giving full
cooperation to each other, in every manner.
6. That the petitioner will continue to live with the Opposite
party No.2 in separate accommodation, till the time Opposite
Party No.2 gains faith and believe that the parents of the
petitioner will not interfere in their conjugal life and they will
not torture her in future, in any manner.
7. That after restoration of peaceful conjugal relationship, the
Opposite party No.2 and her prosecution witness shall
cooperate in disposal of the criminal case in a speedy manner,
in favour of the petitioner.
8. That the aforesaid contents of the agreement have been
read over and explained into Hindi, which have fully been
understood and accepted by the parties.
Hence, in the above terms and condition a settlement has been
arrived between the parties and both have signed his presence
of their respective learned counsels. Who have also put their
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40567 of 2024 dt.03-04-2025
5/9
signature on the agreement.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Jitendra Prakash Singh) (Smriti Raj)
Signature of the petitioner Signature of opposite party No.2
Date-05.01.2024 Date-05.01.2024
Sd/- Sd/-
Signature of the petitioner Advocate Signature of the opposite party no.2 Advocate
A.O.R. No. 00328 A.O.R. No. 03650
Date-05.01.2024 Date-05.01.2024"
10. It would be apposite to reproduce relevant
Paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 14 ,15, 16 & 17 of Abhishek 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40567 of 2024 dt.03-04-2025
6/9
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 not the 'be all and end all' of the matter,
as what is required to be brought to the notice of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40567 of 2024 dt.03-04-2025
7/9
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40567 of 2024 dt.03-04-2025
8/9
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.
(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."
11. In view of aforesaid factual and legal
submissions as dispute and differences between the parties
have already been settled and they are living happily
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40567 of 2024 dt.03-04-2025
9/9
together, continuing with the present criminal proceeding
against the petitioners before the learned trial court would
only amount to abuse of the process of law and, therefore, by
taking a guiding note of Abhishek case (supra), impugned
order taking cognizance against petitioners dated
16.04.2024
, with all its consequential proceedings, qua, all
above named petitioners arising thereof as passed in
connection with Bheldi P.S. Case No. 194 of 2022, Tr. No.
3501/2024 as passed by learned A.C.J.M.-XI, Saran at
Chapra, is hereby quashed and set aside.
12. Hence, this application stands allowed.
13. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned
trial court/concerned court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 03.04.2025
Transmission Date 03.04.2025
