[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Pravin Kumar Chaudhary vs The State Of Bihar on 4 December, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22204 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1518 Year-2011 Thana- DARBHANGA COMPLAINT CASE
District- Darbhanga
======================================================
1. PRAVIN KUMAR CHAUDHARY Son of Ravindra Chaudhary
2. Ravindra Chaudhary Son of Ram Sogarath Chaudhary
3. Leela Devi Wife of Ravindra Chaudhary
All are Residents of Village-Chahuta Via Kamtaul, P.S-Bisfi, District-
Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Archana Chaudhary, Wife of Pravin Kumar Chaudhary, D/o Ram Kumar
Jha, Resident of Village - Sahora, P.S-Ashok Paper Mill, District-
Darbhanga.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shashi Nath Jha, Advocate
Mr. Sunny Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-12-2025
At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners submitted that vide order dated 15.07.2025,
application with respect to petitioner no.1, who is husband of
O.P. No.2, was withdrawn and so far as petitioner no.3 is
concerned, she had died and, as such, he presses the application
only with respect to petitioner no.2.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
3. The petitioner no.2 has preferred the application
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22204 of 2019 dt.04-12-2025
2/6
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 BNSS for quashing of the order
dated 01.03.2019 passed in CI-1518/11, by the learned S.D.J.M.,
Vaishali at Hajipur, whereby discharge petition dated
15.10.2018
filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 245
of Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
4. The prosecution story, in short is that marriage of
the informant was solemnized with petitioner no.1, namely,
Pravin Kumar Chaudhary on 09.03.2008 and on 15.01.2009, a
male child was also born from the said wedlock. Immediately
thereafter, petitioner no.1 (husband of the informant) and their
in-laws started demanding rupees 1 lakh and for non-fulfillment
of the demand, they subjected her to cruelty both both mental
and physical. Aggrieved by the said act, the informant has filed
the complaint on 16.08.2011 against them.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the discharge petition, filed before the
learned District Court under Section 245 Cr.P.C. on behalf of
the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 01.03.2019. It is
submitted that petitioner no.2, who is father-in-law of O.P. No.2,
aged about 95 years, is not responsible in any manner for the
strained matrimonial relationship between his son and O.P. party
no.2. General and omnibus allegation has been levelled against
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22204 of 2019 dt.04-12-2025
the petitioner no.2. He further submitted that no material was
collected against the petitioner save and except that is alleged in
the FIR. He further submitted that the material available on
record don't disclose any criminal element and, as such, the
impugned order cannot sustain in the eye of law. 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.
6. Learned APP submitted that opportunity shall be
given to the parties to reconcile their dispute amicably.
7. Heard the parties.
8. The law in respect of matrimonial dispute between
husband and wife is well settled at the same time, the Apex
Court recently in the case of Navneesh Aggarwal & Ors. v.
State of Haryana & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 963 has held
that the family members of husband should not be roped
unnecessarily and face vexatious criminal trial.
9. 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22204 of 2019 dt.04-12-2025
10. Recently also, 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, 31 and 32 has reiterated that in cases, particularly, related to
dowry, opportunity be given to the parties first to reconcile,
which inter alia are as follows:-
"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,
(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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22204 of 2019 dt.04-12-2025
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.
32. In Naushey Ali vs. State of U.P., (2025) 4 SCC 78,
one of us (Viswanathan, J.) observed in paragraph 32
that proceeding with the trial, when the parties have
amicably resolved the dispute, would be futile and the
ends of justice require that the settlement be given
effect to by quashing the proceedings. It would be a
grave abuse of process particularly when the dispute
is settled and resolved."
11. 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 FIR, it is evident that there is no specific
allegation against the petitioner no.2 and in course of
investigation also, no material has come against the petitioner
no.2.
12. This Court finds that this is the one case, in which
it can be said that the petitioner, being father-in-law has been
dragged on the basis of false accusations as per the allegation
made in the FIR. In light of the recent judgment of Apex Court
in the case of Navneesh Aggarwal & Ors. v. State of Haryana
& Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 963, and in absence of any
material against the petitioner no.2, the order dated 01.03.2019
passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur, by which he
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22204 of 2019 dt.04-12-2025
has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioner no.2, is
hereby quashed and set aside with respect to petitioner no.2.
13. The application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 08.12.2025
Transmission Date 08.12.2025
