[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Ramajee Rai vs The State Of Bihar on 15 December, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48895 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-112 Year-2017 Thana- GOPALGANJ COMPLAINT CASE
District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Ramajee Rai Son of Chanardeo Rai Resident of Vill -Mogalahi P.S-
Phulwariya Dist -Gopalganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mintu Devi Wife of Manoj Kumar Rai Resident of Vill -Mogalahi P.S-
Phulwariya Dist -Gopalganj At P/A- Daughter of Amarjeet Singh Village-
Pipra Khas Ps- Mirganj, dist- Gopalganj
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Umesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 15-12-2025
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2 The petitioner has preferred the application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 BNSS for quashing of the order dated
19.07.2019
passed by the learned A.C.J.M.-XIII, Gopalganj in
complaint case No.112 of 2017, Trial No.601 of 2025, whereby
cognizance has been taken under Section 498A of the IPC.
3. The prosecution's story, in brief, is that the
complainant's marriage was solemnized with one Manoj Rai in
the year 2009, and from the said wedlock they were blessed
with a girl child. Thereafter, her husband fell ill and underwent
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48895 of 2025 dt.15-12-2025
treatment, during which a huge amount of money was spent.
Thereafter, the petitioner and in-laws started demanding a cash
of rupees one lacs and for non-fulfillment of the demand, they
subjected her to cruelty both mental and physical. The accused
persons also ousted the complainant on 30.12.2016 from her
matrimonial home. In the meantime, efforts were made between
the parties to reconcile their strained matrimonial relationship
but all went in vain, forcing the complainant/O.P. No.2 to file
the present complaint petition in the year 2017.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that petitioners is brother-in-law (bhaisur)
of O.P. No.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned
District Court before taking cognizance failed to consider that
the offence as alleged is not against the society. He further
submitted that even considering the offence as alleged, material
available on record don't disclose any criminal element and
without considering this aspect, the order impugned becomes
unsustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel further
submitted that marriage is a sacred ceremony but little
matrimonial skirmish suddenly erupts into hatred but the same
can be resolved, if the parties are given opportunity to ponder
to reconcile their dispute outside the court.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48895 of 2025 dt.15-12-2025
5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State
submitted that a chance be given to the parties for amicable
settlement outside the court.
6. Heard the parties.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48895 of 2025 dt.15-12-2025
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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48895 of 2025 dt.15-12-2025
particularly when the dispute is settled and
resolved."
10. From perusal of the FIR, it is evident that there is
no specific allegation against the petitioner, rather the same is
general and omnibus. I find that in absence of any material
evidence against the petitioner, who is brother-in-law (Bhaisur)
of the O.P. No.2, if he is allowed to face prosecution, the same
will amount to abuse of process of court.
11. I find that no case under Sections 498 A of the
Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner.
Accordingly, the entire proceeding and impugned order dated
19.07.2019 passed by the learned A.C.J.M.-XIII, Gopalganj in
connection with complaint case No.112 of 2017, Trial No.601
of 2025 are hereby set aside and quashed with respect to the
petitioner.
12. Accordingly, the quashing application stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 18.12.2025
Transmission Date 18.12.2025
