[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Jitan Rajak vs The State Of Bihar on 8 December, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22003 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1421 Year-2014 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Jamui
======================================================
1. Jitan Rajak S/O Ram Dhari Rajak R/O Naya Gaon, Hari Sabha Chowk, Dd
Tulsi Road, P.S.- Jamalpur, Dist.- Munger (Withdrawn)
2. Hem Lata Devi, Female, Aged about 57 years, Wife Of Jeetan Rajak R/O
Naya Gaon, Hari Sabha Chowk, DD Tulsi Road, P.S.- Jamalpur, Dist.-
Munger
3. Asha Devi, Female, Aged about 33 years, W/O Sudoh Kumar Rajak, R/O
Village And P.O.- Beldaur, P.S.- Beldaur, Dist.- Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kushboo Kumari D/O Pappu Rajak R/O Purani Bazar, Near Kali Mandir,
P.S.- Jamui, Dist.- Jamui
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Chandan Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ravi Kant Tiwari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-12-2025
At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners submitted that vide order dated 22.03.2024,
application with respect to petitioner no.1, who is father-in-law
of O.P. No.2, was withdrawn and, as such, he presses the
application only with respect to petitioner nos.2 and 3, who are
mother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of the O.P. No. 2.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and learned APP for the State.
3. The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 have preferred the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22003 of 2021 dt.08-12-2025
2/12
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order
dated 09.12.2019 passed in Complaint Case No. 1421c/2014, by
the learned S.D.J.M., Jamui, whereby discharge petition filed
on behalf of the petitioners under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. was
dismissed.
4. The prosecution story, in short is that marriage of
the complainant/O.P. No. 2 was solemnized with one Pappu
Rajak, in the year 2012. In the year 2014, the couple were
blessed with a child out of the wedlock and, thereafter, the
behaviour of the husband of O.P. No. 2 allegedly became bad
leading to subjecting the O.P. No. 2 to cruelty by all the family
members.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that the discharge petition, filed before the
learned District Court under Section 239 Cr.P.C. on behalf of
the petitioners was dismissed vide order dated 09.12.2019. It is
submitted that petitioners are not responsible in any manner for
the strained matrimonial relationship between O.P. no.2 and her
husband. General and omnibus allegation has been levelled
against the petitioners. He further submitted that petitioner no. 3
is sister-in-law of the O.P. No. 2 and she is residing at different
village and she is not concerned with the matrimonial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22003 of 2021 dt.08-12-2025
3/12
relationship of her brother with O.P. No. 2, therefore, question
of subjecting the O.P. No. 2 to cruelty by petitioner no. 3 does
not arises. He further submitted that so far as petitioner no. 2 is
concerned, she is ready to convince her son to go for settlement
with the O.P. No. 2, at the same time, considering the fact that
her son has accepted to make payment of a sum of Rs. 5000/-
per month to the O.P. No. 2 for education of her only child,
learned counsel admits that till the child attains majority, the son
of the petitioner no. 2 becomes natural guardian, therefore,
proper nutrition for growth of the child is also required and for
that also, the petitioner no. 2 and her son, who is the husband of
the O.P. No. 2, are taking care of without any demand from O.P.
No. 2 in this regard.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that marriage is
a sacred ceremony but little matrimonial skirmish suddenly
erupts into hatred and the parties ponder to reconcile their
dispute outside the court.
7. Learned APP submitted that primarily the
allegation is not against the society and the parties can resolve
their dispute amicably in accordance with law laid down by the
Apex Court.
8. Heard the parties.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22003 of 2021 dt.08-12-2025
4/12
9. The law in respect of matrimonial dispute between
husband and wife is well settled at the same time, the Apex
Court has held that the family members of husband should not
be roped unnecessarily and face vexatious criminal trial.
10. It is commonly seen in the society that the entire
family members, as well as, relatives are made accused along
with the husband to face criminal prosecution. The Apex Court
has demarcated the manner in which the complaints are
entertained by the learned District Court.
11. From perusal of the complaint, it is evident that
there is no specific allegation against the petitioner no. 3, who is
sister-in-law of the O.P. No. 2 and allegation against her is
general and omnibus.
12. In case of State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy
reported in (1977 Cr.LJ 1125), it has been held that that "if no
reason at all has been assigned by the trial Court for refusing to
discharge the accused petitioner, such order suffers from serious
infirmity." In the complaint, it is evident that there is no specific
allegation against the petitioner no.3, who is sister-in-law of the
O.P. No. 2 and in course of investigation also, no material has
come against her.
13. It has been held by the Apex Court that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22003 of 2021 dt.08-12-2025
5/12
matrimonial dispute is not an offense against the society rather a
matrimonial dispute is a private conflict between spouses and
does not inherently constitute an offence against society. The
Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana,
reported in, (2003) 4 SCC 675, in paragraph nos. 12 and 13 by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is as under:-
" 12. The special features in such
matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the
duty of the court to encourage genuine
settlements of matrimonial disputes.
13. The observations made by this
Court, though in a slightly different context, in
G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [(2000) 3 SCC 693 :
2000 SCC (Cri) 733] are very apt for
determining the approach required to be kept in
view in a matrimonial dispute by the courts. It
was said that there has been an outburst of
matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage
is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which
is to enable the young couple to settle down in
life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial
skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume
serious proportions resulting in commission of
heinous crimes in which elders of the family are
also involved with the result that those who
could have counselled and brought about
rapprochement are rendered helpless on their
being arrayed as accused in the criminal case.
There are many other reasons which need not be
mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial
litigation so that the parties may ponder over
their defaults and terminate their disputes
amicably by mutual agreement instead of
fighting it out in a court of law where it takes
years and years to conclude and in that process
the parties lose their "young" days in chasing
their "cases" in different courts.
14. Recently also the Apex Court in the case of
Navneesh Aggarwal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
reported in 2025 INSC 963, has held that the family members
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22003 of 2021 dt.08-12-2025
6/12
of husband should not be roped unnecessarily and face
vexatious criminal trial.
15. I find that no case under Section 498A and other
allied sections of IPC is made out against petitioner no. 3.
Accordingly, the entire proceedings along with the order dated
16.05.2025
are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent it
relates to petitioner no. 3.
16. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Mange
Ram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another (Special Leave
Petition (Criminal) No.10817 of 2024), in paragraph nos. 25
and 31 dealing with the cases related to dowry has held that
opportunity be given to the parties first to reconcile. Paragraphs
no. 23 and 31 are inter alia reproduced hereinafter:-
"25. This Court, in Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs.
State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735, has made it
clear that family members of the husband ought not
to be unnecessarily roped into criminal proceedings
arising out of matrimonial discord. The Court
observed that it has become a recurring tendency to
implicate every member of the husband's family,
irrespective of their role or actual involvement,
merely because a dispute has arisen between the
spouses. It was further held that where the
allegations are bereft of specific particulars, and
particularly where the relatives sought to be
prosecuted are residing separately or have had no
connection with the matrimonial home, allowing the
prosecution to proceed would amount to an abuse of
the process of law. The Court noted that criminal
law is not to be deployed as an instrument of
harassment, and that judicial scrutiny must be
exercised to guard against such misuse.
31. We also refer to Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22003 of 2021 dt.08-12-2025
(2012) 10 SCC 303 wherein this Court observed that
where the High Court quashes a criminal
proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute
between the offender and the victim has been
settled, although the offences are not compoundable,
it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal
proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice
in the case demands that the dispute between the
parties is put to an end and peace is restored,
securing the ends of justice being the ultimate
guiding factor. In this regard, a specific reference
was made to offences arising out of matrimony,
particularly relating to dowry, etc. or a family
dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim
but the offender and the victim have settled all
disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the
fact that such offences have not been made
compoundable. The High Court may, within the
framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal
proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is
satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is
hardly any likelihood of the offender being
convicted and by not quashing the criminal
proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of
justice shall be defeated."
17. A reference can be taken to law laid down by the
Apex Court in case of Naushey Ali & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78, considering the
entirety of matters, particularly dealing with the misuse of
Section 498 of IPC, referring to its earlier judgment, finally
concluded that offences arising out of matrimonial dispute
particularly relating to dowry etc. or a family dispute where
wrong is committed to the victim by the offenders and his
family, can be settled amicably.
18. So far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, she is ready
to proceed to settle the strained matrimonial relationship of her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22003 of 2021 dt.08-12-2025
son and daughter-in-law (O.P. No.2) amicably, the learned
District Court shall also strive till last to settle the dispute
outside the Court
19. Petitioner no. 2 along with her son and opposite
party no. 2 have agreed to appear before the learned District
Court on 22.12.2025 at 10:30 AM.
20. Learned District Court is directed to take
necessary steps to issue notices to the respective parties and
upon their appearance, refer the matter before the learned
Mediator of the District Mediation Center by fixing a date for
appearance of the parties.
21. Learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center
concerned shall make his/her best efforts to settle the dispute
between the parties amicably and thereafter submit his/her
report before the concerned learned District Court, well within a
period of four months, till then, no coercive action shall be
taken against the petitioner no. 2 in connection with the
aforesaid case.
22. In case, the parties resolve their dispute amicably,
then the proceeding is required to be dropped in light of the law
laid down by the Apex Court as referred hereinabove.
23. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner no. 2
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22003 of 2021 dt.08-12-2025
to appear on 22.12.2025 before the learned District Court or any
date fixed by the learned Mediator, without any reason, the
interim protection granted to the petitioner no. 2 shall
automatically lose its force.
24. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the
petitioners no. 2 and she fails to reconcile, then in that case, the
learned District Court shall proceed with the trial. In case, it is
deliberate on the part of the opposite party no.2 to reconcile,
then in that case, the interim protection granted to the petitioner
no. 2 shall continue and the trial shall proceed in accordance
with law.
25. Before parting with the order, I find it proper to
direct the learned District Court to get informed that he has to
play the role of parens patriae considering the fact that the son
of the petitioner no. 2 has accepted to make payment of a sum of
Rs. 5000/- per month to the O.P. No. 2 for education of her only
child. Till the child attains majority, the son of the petitioner no.
2 becomes natural guardian, therefore, proper nutrition for
growth of the child is also required and for that also, the
petitioner no. 2 and her son, who is the husband of the O.P. No.
2, are required to take care of. He must exercise his jurisdiction
to consider for the welfare of the child which is paramount till
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22003 of 2021 dt.08-12-2025
the parties resolve their dispute in accordance with the law.
26. In this regard, it would be also gainful to
reproduce the observation made by the Apex Court in Mausami
Moita Ganguli V. Jayant Ganguli reported in (2008)7 SCC 673
in paragraph nos. 19 to 21 and 23 to 26:
"19. The principle of law in relation to the
custody of a minor child are well settled. It is trite that
while determining the question as to which parent the care
and control of a child should be committed, the first and the
paramount consideration is the welfare and interest of the
child and not the rights of the parents under a statute.
Indubitably, the provisions of the law pertaining to the
custody of a child contained in either the Guardians and
Wards Act, 1890(Section 17) or the Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956 (Section 13) also hold out the
welfare of the child as a predominant consideration. In fact,
no statute, on the subject, can ignore, eschew or obliterate
the vital factor of the welfare of the minor."
"20. The question of welfare of the minor child
has again to be considered in the background of the
relevant facts and circumstances. Each case has to be
decided on its own facts and other decided cases can hardly
serve as binding precedents in so far as the factual aspects
of the case are concerned. It is, no doubt, true that father is
presumed by the statues to be better suited to look after the
welfare of the child, being normally the working member
and head of the family, yet in each case the court has to see
primarily to the welfare of the child in determining the
question of his or her custody. Better financial resources of
either of the parents or their love for the child may be one
relevant considerations but cannot be the sole determining
factor for the custody of the child. It is here that a heavy
duty is cast on the court to exercise its judicial discretion
judiciously in the background of all the relevant facts and
circumstance, bearing in mind the welfare of the child as
the paramount consideration."
21. In Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal
reported in (1973) 1 SCC 840, a three-Judge Bench of the
Apex Court in a rather curt language had observed that the
controlling factor governing the custody of the child would
be its welfare and not the rights of the parent:
"15. ... The children are not mere chattels: nor
are they mere playthings for their parents. Absolute right of
the parents over the destinies and the lives of their children
has, in the modern changed social conditions, yielded to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22003 of 2021 dt.08-12-2025
considerations of their welfare as human being so that they
may grow up in a normal balanced manner to be useful
members of the society and the guardian court in case of a
dispute between the mother and the father, is expected to
strike a just and proper balance between the requirements
of welfare of the minor children and the rights of their
respective parents over them."
"23. Having bestowed our anxious
consideration to the material on record and the observation
made by the courts below, we are of the view that in the
present case there is no ground to upset the judgment and
order of the High Court. There is nothing on record to
suggest that the welfare of the child is in any way in peril in
the hands of the father. In our opinion, the stability and
security of the child is also essential ingredient for a full
development of child's talent and personality. As noted
above, the appellant is a teacher, now employed in a school
at Panipat, where she had shifted from Chandigarh some
time back. Earlier, she was teaching in some school at
Calcutta.
Admittedly, she is living alone. Except for a very
short duration when he was with the appellant, Master
Satyajeet has been living and studying in Allahabad in a
good school and is stated to have his small group of friends
there. At Panipat, it would be an entirely new environment
for him as compared to Allahabad."
"25. It is also significant to note that during the
course of hearing on one of the dates, when we had not yet
interviewed Satyajeet, we had suggested that it would be
better if the child could stay with his mother for some more
time. However, upon hearing us, he started crying and
whining and, showed reluctance to go with the mother."
Watching his reaction, we dropped the proposal.
"26. Under these circumstances and bearing in
mind the paramount consideration of the welfare of the
child, we are convinced that the child's interest and welfare
will be best served if he continues to be in the custody of the
father, In our opinion, for the present, it is not desirable to
disturb the custody of master Satyajeet and, therefore, the
order of the High Court giving his exclusive custody to the
father with visitation rights to the mother deserves to be
maintained. We feel that the visitation rights to the
appellant by the High Court, as noted above, also do not
require any modification."
We, therefore, affirm the order and the afore-
extracted direction given by the High Court. It will,
however, be open to the parties to move this Court for
modification of this order or for seeking any direction
regarding the custody and well- being of the child, if there
is any change in the circumstances."
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22003 of 2021 dt.08-12-2025
27. In the case of Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha
Nagpal reported in (2009) 1 SCC 42, the Apex Court in
paragraph 50 has held as follows:-
"50. When the Court is confronted with
conflicting demands made by the parents, each time it has
to justify the demands. The Court has not only to look at the
issue on legalistic basis, in such matters human angles are
relevant for deciding those issues. The Court then does not
give emphasis on what the parties say, it has to exercise a
jurisdiction which is aimed at the welfare of the minor."
28. Accordingly, the order dated 09.12.2019 is
modified to the above extent.
29. The application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 09.12.2025
Transmission Date 09.12.2025
