Patna High Court
Gyan Vardhan vs The State Of Bihar on 28 April, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69983 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2047 Year-2021 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
1. Gyan Vardhan, S/o Anil Kumar, R/o Village- Parshuram Nagar Colony,
Sandalpur, Kumahrar, P.S.- Alamganj, Distt. - Patna
2. Anil Kumar, S/o Late Rajo Singh, R/o village - Parshuram Nagar Colony,
Sandalpur, Kumahrar, P.S. - Alamganj, Distt. - Patna, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Monika Shailesh, W/o Gyan Vardhan, presently residing at Sudhi Tola,
Mahendru, P.S. - Pirbahore, Distt. - Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Advocate
Mrs. Rasika, Advocate
Ms. Janmejay Giridhar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shaishav Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-04-2025
Heard Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioners, Mr. Jagdhar Prasad Singh, learned APP for the
State and Mr. Shaishav Kumar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of O.P. No.2.
2. The present petition has been preferred under
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.')
for quashing of the order dated 16.08.2022 as passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Patna in connection with
Complaint Case No.2047(C) of 2021, whereby the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69983 of 2024 dt.28-04-2025
2/12
Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 325, 506 of the Indian
Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C.') as well as Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short 'D.P. Act') and issued
summons against the petitioners to face trial.
3. As per the case of the complainant/O.P. No.2
filed before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Patna on 08.06.2021, it appears that she got married on
16.02.2020
according to Hindu Rites and Customs with
petitioner no.1. After sometime, the complainant was
subjected to physical and mental cruelty in her matrimonial
home due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry as raised
further by petitioners for cash of Rs.5 lakhs and also a piece
of land situated at Bihta, Patna. Finally, the complainant/O.P.
No.2 was ousted from her matrimonial home on 18.02.2021.
It was also alleged that on 04.04.2021, petitioner No.1
pushed the complainant/O.P. No.2 from the third floor, which
was an attempt for her murder, where she survived, but
received fracture in both her legs.
4. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, after
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69983 of 2024 dt.28-04-2025
considering the statement of complainant on oath and other
enquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,
Patna took cognizance for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 325, 506 of the I.P.C. as well as Sections 3
and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners without taking any shelter of
merit available for petitioners straightway submitted that the
matter between the parties stands compromised for which a
joint compromise petition was filed before this Court on joint
affidavit dated 22.04.2025. Learned counsel submitted that
petitioner no.2 is father-in-law facing general and omnibus
allegation qua alleged cruelty as said to be committed upon
O.P. No.2. It is further submitted that offence under Section
325 IPC is compoundable in nature with the person on whom
hurt is caused. It is pointed out by Mr. Singh that in view of
compromise, continuing with criminal proceedings between
the parties before the courts below would only amount to
abuse of the process of Court and, therefore, same be
quashed/set aside to secure the end of justice. In support of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69983 of 2024 dt.28-04-2025
his submission, Mr. Singh has relied upon the legal reports of
Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through Abhishek vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC
Online SC 1083.
6. Mr. Shaishav Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for O.P. No.2 also affirmed the factum of compromise
between the parties as submitted above by learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners. It is submitted that he has no
objection that in view of compromise all pending cases
between the parties also be quashed while exercising powers
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.
Same has also not been objected by learned counsel
appearing for petitioners in view of compromise.
7. It would be apposite to reproduce the joint
compromise dated 22.04.2025 as filed before this Court on
affidavit, the same is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of
convenience:-
"Both the parties have amicably and
mutually agreed upon to settle all claims,
counter claims and disputes for present and
future forever under following conditions:-
A. Mr. Gyan Vardhan (Petitioner no.1
herein) has agreed to pay permanent
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69983 of 2024 dt.28-04-2025
alimony as one time settlement of Rs.
36,00,000/- in favour of Smt. Monika
Shailesh (O.P. No.2);
B. First installment of Rs. 18,00,000/- to
be paid by Petitioner No.1 at the time of
passing of first motion which is going to be
filed within 30 days of order dated 69983
18.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2047 of
C. The balance amount of Rs. 18,00,000/-
to be paid by Petitioner no.1 to O.P. No.2 at
the time of second motion/final judgment.
D. The aforesaid payment shall be made in
favour of O.P. No.2 by way of bank draft.
E. Both the parties also agree that they will
file for closure/withdraw/dispose/settle all
and any criminal as well as civil case
pending between them before payment of
final amount of one-time settlement.
F. Smt. Monika Shailesh (O.P. No. 2) is free
to receive pen-drive deposited/submitted by
Gyan Vardhan (petitioner no.1) in
Matrimonial (divorce) Case No. 471/2021.
Against her as evidence from the court of
Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna at
the time of second motion/final judgment.
G. Both the parties have agreed that after
this full and final settlement, they will not
file any case of any nature against each
other and also undertake to respect and
honour their privacy".
8. It appears out of aforesaid compromise petition
that the following cases are lodged by O.P. No.2 against the
petitioners i.e. (i) Complaint before Mahila Police Station
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69983 of 2024 dt.28-04-2025
Gardanibagh, Patna bearing Diary No.2014 Mahila P.S.
Case dated 14.09.2021 (ii) Maintenance Case No.199 of
2021 pending before the court of learned Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Patna, (iii) Complaint Case
No.1025(C) of 2024 pending before the court of J.M., First
Class, Patna City, whereas the following cases are lodged by
petitioners against O.P. No.2 i.e. (i) Complaint Case
No.754 (c) of 2024 pending before the court of learned
A.C.J.M.-1st, Patna City, (ii) Matrimonial (Divorce) Case
No.471 of 2021 pending before the court of learned
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna.
9. It would be apposite to reproduce para-13, 14,
15, 16 & 17 of the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as
passed in the case of Abhishek Case (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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69983 of 2024 dt.28-04-2025
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69983 of 2024 dt.28-04-2025
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69983 of 2024 dt.28-04-2025
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 accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge."
10. Considering the aforesaid, as parties have
amicably settled their disputes in terms of aforesaid
compromise, where the permanent alimony/one-time
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69983 of 2024 dt.28-04-2025
settlement has been decided between the parties for total
amount of Rs. 36,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-six Lakhs), out of
which, Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs) to be paid
at the time of first motion of mutual divorce and balance
amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs) be paid
at the time of second motion/judgment to O.P. No.2 by
petitioner No.1 before the court of learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Patna by way of draft drawn in favour of O.P.
No.2. Parties have also decided to withdraw criminal cases
pending between them and further to dissolve their marriage
by way of mutual divorce.
11. In view of the aforesaid, it appears that
continuing criminal proceedings between the parties would be
only abusing the process of court of the law and, therefore,
the present cognizance order dated 16.08.2022 as passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Patna in Complaint
Case No.2047(C)/2021 and also proceedings of
Maintenance Case No.199 of 2021 pending before the
court of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Patna, Complaint Case No.1025(C) of 2024 pending
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69983 of 2024 dt.28-04-2025
before the court of J.M., First Class, Patna City, Complaint
before Mahila Police Station Gardanibagh, Patna bearing
Diary No.2014 Mahila P.S. Case dated 14.09.2021 as
lodged by O.P. No.2 against petitioners and Complaint Case
No.754(c) of 2024 as lodged by petitioner against O.P.
No.2 pending before the court of learned A.C.J.M.-1st, Patna
City stand quashed/set aside by exercising powers under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.
12. The parties are directed to appear before the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna within 30 days
of this order for its first motion. Petitioner no.1 is directed to
pay Rs. 18 lakhs by way of bank draft drawn in favour of O.P.
No.2 on the very same day as first installment. Parties are
directed to adhere with terms and conditions of the
compromise as discussed in Para-7 of the judgment.
13. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Patna is directed to proceed expeditiously without giving any
unnecessary adjournment in view of amicable settlement.
14. The application stands allowed. Pending
application, if any, also stands disposed of in view of this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69983 of 2024 dt.28-04-2025
judgment.
15. Let a copy of this order be sent to the all
concerned courts, where above discussed cases are pending
and also to the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Patna, for its compliance.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 22.04.2025
Uploading Date 28.04.2025
Transmission Date 28.04.2025
