Patna High Court
Ritu Raj vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 11 February, 2025
Author: Shailendra Singh
Bench: Shailendra Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39100 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-133 Year-2013 Thana- SHRIKRISHNAPURI District- Patna
======================================================
Ritu Raj, Son of Dr. Uday Pratap Narain Singh, Resident of 2M/77
Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, P.S. - Bahadurpur,
District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Nilu Kumari, Wife of Ritu Raj, D/o Navlesh Sharma, Resident of West
Anand Puri, H. NO. 13E/11, P.S. - Srikrishnapuri, District- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ritu Raj, Petitioner-in-Person
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. N.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 11-02-2025
Heard Mr. Ritu Raj, the petitioner-in-person, Mr.
N.K. Agarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the
informant assisted by Mr. Gaurav Kumar, advocate and Dr.
Indiwar Kumari, learned APP for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') by
the petitioner, Ritu Raj, who himself appeared and argued his
own matter. The petitioner has challenged the order dated
05.07.2014
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Patna in connection with S.K. Puri P.S. Case No. 133 of 2013 by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39100 of 2015 dt.11-02-2025
which the cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323,
504, 498A and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code ( in short 'IPC')
has been taken against the petitioner and by filing I.A. No. 01 of
2023 he has prayed for an amendment in the prayer and
revealed that the trial of the petitioner has started, so, the
consequent proceeding having started after the framing of
charge, be also quashed along with the cognizance order.
3. The main grounds taken by the petitioner to
assail the order impugned are that firstly the allegations made by
the O.P. No.2, who happens his wife, in the FIR of S.K. Puri P.S.
Case No. 133 of 2013 are completely false and the said FIR has
been lodged by her in retaliation to the divorce case filed by the
petitioner under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the
Family Court, Patna on 03.07.2012 bearing Matrimonial Case
No. 489 of 2012 and an informatory petition had also been filed
before the registration of the FIR of S.K. Puri P.S. Case No. 133
of 2013 in which the petitioner had shown his apprehension of
possibility of false implication of the petitioner and his family
members in a false case by the O.P. No.2. The petitioner
submitted that the O.P. No.2, wife of the petitioner, was
suffering from an incurable disease namely, Hepatitis-B, at the
time of marriage which was suppressed by the O.P. No.2 and her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39100 of 2015 dt.11-02-2025
parental family members and as per medical science, the
Hepatitis-B is an infectious disease and can transmit from one
body to another by sexual relation and on account of this
compelling circumstance, the petitioner had to file divorce case
and after filing that case, an illicit relationship between his wife
and some other person also came in his knowledge for which he
has taken necessary steps in his divorce case. In the light of
direction given by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 33407 of 2013, a
Medical Board was constituted to examine the health of O.P.
No.2 in which it was found by the Medical Board that the O.P.
No.2 was suffering from Hepatitis-B disease.
Secondly, in the entire FIR, there is no specific
allegation against the petitioner and on the same set of
allegations, the police exonerated some of the accused persons
but chargesheeted the petitioner, his father and mother which is
completely against the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana & Anr.
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2379 of 2024. It has been
argued by him that as per the allegations made by O.P. No.2 in
her FIR, she was physically assaulted by the petitioner and his
family members but there is no any medical evidence to support
the said allegation and it is very important to mention that at the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39100 of 2015 dt.11-02-2025
alleged time, neither the petitioner nor his father was present at
the alleged place rather both were present at their posting
places. He further submitted that the O.P. No.2 had also filed
one more criminal case vide Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 212
of 2013 dated 03.06.2013 against the petitioner's father and
mother alleging therein physical assault committed by her
father-in-law by using an iron rod on her head on 30.05.2013.
The police investigated the Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 212 of
2013 and found no evidence and consequently submitted final
form in favour of petitioner's father and it was found by the
police during investigation that the petitioner's father was not
present at the alleged place of occurrence rather he was on his
duty at Primary Health Center, Dhanarua, Patna and in this
regard, the police got a certificate issued by in-charge Medical
Officer of P.H.C., Dhanarua, Patna. He further submitted that
the father of O.P. No.2 has recorded his evidence in the
Matrimonial Case No. 489 of 2012 filed by him for dissolution
of his marriage with O.P. No.2 and the statements made by the
father of O.P. No.2 in his evidence are totally contradictory to
the allegations made by the O.P. No. 2 in the FIR of present
matter.
In support of above submissions and grounds, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39100 of 2015 dt.11-02-2025
petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments of
the Hon'ble Apex Court:
(i). Neelu Chopra & Anr. vs. Bharti passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 949 of 2003, the relevant paragraph nos.
4 & 5 upon which the petitioner has placed reliance are being
reproduced as under:
" 4. We have seen the complaint very
carefully. From a bare reading of the complaint
it is apparent that the problem started barely
after six months of the marriage. In paragraph
3 of the complaint, it is stated that all the
accused came to complainant's parents house
at Gidderbaha and asked her parents to give
the complainant more gold and other articles as
dowry otherwise they would leave the
complainant there and Rajesh would be
married second time. In paragraph 4, the
complaint is against Rajesh in the sense that
the accused Rajesh asked the complainant to
hand over the ornaments and clothes to his
parents lest they are lost in the way. On
reaching to Delhi when the ornament were
asked back by the complainant, they were not
returned back. When we see the complaint as a
whole it is basically against the accused
Rajesh. All the allegations are against Rajesh.
There is undoubtedly some reference to the
present appellants, but what strikes us is that
there are no particulars given as to date on
which the ornaments were handed over, as to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39100 of 2015 dt.11-02-2025
the exact number of ornaments or their
description and as to the date when the
ornaments were asked back and were refused.
Even the weight of the ornaments is not
mentioned in the complaint and it is a general
and vague complaint that the ornaments were
sometime given in the custody of the
appellants and they were not returned. What
strikes us more is that even in paragraph 10 of
the complaint where the complainant says that
she asked for her clothes and ornaments which
were given to the accused and they refused to
give these back, the date is significantly
absent. It seems from the order taking
cognizance that the learned Magistrate has
mentioned about the version of the
complainant is supported by Bhagwati and
Dharampal to the fact that the ornaments were
entrusted to Krishan Saroop and Rajesh while
clothes were entrusted to Rakhi and they
refused to hand over the same. Even their
statements could not be better than the vague
complaint. Even about the clothes, the date on
which they were handed over to Rakhee who
happens to be the daughter of the present
appellants and the other details are very
significantly absent. It was also the version of
the complainant that she was beaten in support
of which she has filed a certificate from AIIMS
hospital, New Delhi. However, in the
complaint, it is not seen as to on which date
she was beaten and by whom. It is significant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39100 of 2015 dt.11-02-2025
to note that the matter against the Rakhee, the
4th original accused has already been dropped
as she was in fact not even the resident of the
same house.
5. In order to lodge a proper compliant,
mere mention of the sections and the language
of those sections is not be all and end of the
matter. 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 committing of that offence. When we see
the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It
does not show as to which accused has
committed what offence and what is the exact
role played by these appellants in the
commission of offence. There could be said
something against Rajesh, as the allegations
are made against him more precisely but he is
no more and has already expired. Under such
circumstances, it would be an abuse of process
of law to allow the prosecution to continue
against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present
appellants herein on the basis of vague and
general complaint which is silent about the
precise acts of the appellants."
(ii). Mahmood Ali & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023, the relevant
paragraph no. 12 upon which petitioner has placed reliance is
being reproduced as under:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39100 of 2015 dt.11-02-2025
" 12. At this stage, we would like to
observe something important. Whenever an
accused comes before the Court invoking
either the inherent powers under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or
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 for wreaking vengeance, then in such
circumstances the Court owes a duty to look
into the FIR with care and a little more closely.
We say so because once the complainant
decides to proceed against the accused with an
ulterior motive for wreaking personal
vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the
FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the
necessary pleadings. The complainant would
ensure that the averments made in the
FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the
necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged
offence. Therefore, it will not be just 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. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39100 of 2015 dt.11-02-2025
circumspection try to read in between the lines.
The Court while exercising its jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226
of the Constitution need not restrict itself only
to the stage of a case but is empowered to take
into account the overall circumstances leading
to the initiation/registration of the case as well
as the materials collected in the course of
investigation. Take for instance the case on
hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over
a period of time. It is in the background of
such circumstances the registration of multiple
FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting
the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private
or personal grudge as alleged."
(iii). Salib @ Shalu @ Salim vs. State of U.P. &
Ors. passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2344 of 2023, and in the
paragraph no. 26 of the judgment upon which the reliance has
been placed by the petitioner, the same view taken by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahmood Ali (Supra) was
reiterated.
(iv). Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana & Anr.
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2379 of 2024, the relevant
paragraph no. 18 upon which the petitioner has placed reliance
is being reproduced as under:
" 18. The plain reading of the FIR
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39100 of 2015 dt.11-02-2025
and the chargesheet papers indicate that the
allegations levelled by the First Informant are
quite vague, general and sweeping specifying
no instances of criminal conduct. It is also
pertinent to note that in the FIR no specific
date or time of the alleged offence/offences has
been disclosed. Even the police thought fit to
drop the proceedings against the other
members of the Appellant's family. Thus, we
are of the view that the FIR lodged by the
Respondent No. 2 was nothing but a
counterblast to the divorce petition & also the
domestic violence case."
(v). Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh passed
in Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 2015, the relevant paragraphs
nos. 19, 20 and 21 upon which the petitioner has placed reliance
are being reproduced as under:
" 19. The most significant aspect to
be taken note of presently is that Bhawna
admittedly parted ways with her matrimonial
home and her in-laws in February, 2009, be it
voluntarily or otherwise, but she did not
choose to make a complaint against them in
relation to dowry harassment till the year 2013.
Surprisingly, FIR No. 56 dated 09.02.2013
records that the occurrence of the offence was
from 02.07.2007 to 05.02.2013, but no
allegations were made by Bhawna against the
appellants after she left her matrimonial home
in February, 2009. Significantly, Bhawna got
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39100 of 2015 dt.11-02-2025
married to Nimish on 02.07.2007 at Indore and
went to Mumbai with him on 08.07.2007. Her
interaction with her in-laws thereafter seems to
have been only during festivals and is stated to
be about 3 or 4 times. Sourabh, an architect,
was stationed at Delhi since the year 2007 and
no specific allegation was ever made against
him by Bhawna. In fact, she merely made a
general allegation to the effect that he also
tortured her mentally and physically for dowry.
No specific instance was cited by her in that
regard or as to how he subjected her to such
harassment from Delhi. Similarly, Abhishek
became a judicial officer 6 or 7 months after
her marriage and seems to have had no
occasion to be with Bhawna and Nimish at
Mumbai. His exposure to her was only when
she came to visit her in-laws during festivals.
Surprisingly, Bhawna alleges that at the time
of his own marriage, Abhishek demanded that
Bhawna and her parents should provide him
with a car and ₹.2 lakhs in cash. Why he
would make such a demand for dowry, even if
he was inclined to commit such an illegality,
from his sister-in-law at the time of his own
marriage is rather incongruous and difficult to
comprehend. Further, the fact that Bhawna
confessed to making a vicious complaint
against Abhishek to the High Court clearly
shows that her motives were not clean insofar
as her brother-in-law, Abhishek, is concerned,
and she clearly wanted to wreak vengeance
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39100 of 2015 dt.11-02-2025
against her in-laws. The allegation levelled by
Bhawna against her mother-in-law, Kusum
Lata, with regard to how she taunted her when
she wore a maxi is wholly insufficient to
constitute cruelty in terms of Section 498A
IPC.
20. We may also note that Bhawna
herself claimed that Nimish came to her
brother's wedding in 2012, but she has no
details to offer with regard to any harassment
for dowry being meted out to her by her
mother-in-law and her brothers-in-law after
2009. As noted earlier, even for that period
also, her allegations are mostly general and
omnibus in nature, without any specific details
as to how and when her brothers-in-law and
mother-in-law, who lived in different cities
altogether, subjected her to harassment for
dowry.
21. Most damaging to Bhawna's
case is the fact that she did nothing whatsoever
after leaving her matrimonial home in
February, 2009, and filed a complaint in the
year 2013 alleging dowry harassment, just
before her husband instituted divorce
proceedings."
4. On the other hand, learned senior counsel
appearing for the O.P. No.2 has argued that it is a settled
principle of law that prosecution's case cannot be thrown out
merely on account of some contradictions and so far as the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39100 of 2015 dt.11-02-2025
instant matter is concerned, the petitioner has pointed out the
contradictions in the light of the evidence given in the divorce
suit while in the present matter which is based on a police report
the trial of the petitioner is going on and the material witnesses
are to be examined and during investigation, sufficient
evidences came out upon which reliance was placed by the
investigating officer and consequently, the petitioner and other
co-accused persons were chargesheeted. It has been further
submitted that the petitioner's plea as to he being not present at
the alleged place of occurrence, is to be examined by the trial
court and the same is subject of evidence and it is not essential
to give the details of the commission of an offence minutely in
the FIR, so, the prosecution's case cannot be disbelieved at the
initial stage merely on account of not giving some details of the
alleged demands etc., however, there is specific allegation
against the petitioner in the FIR and it is settled position of law
that husband and in-laws cannot be treated equally mainly in
view of the nature of allegation concerned to dowry demand and
cruelty, though some accused persons have been exonerated by
the police but on different grounds which are not applicable to
the petitioner.
5. Heard both the sides and perused the FIR, case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39100 of 2015 dt.11-02-2025
diary and other relevant materials including the judgments of
the Hon'ble Apex Court which have been referred by the
petitioner.
6. The petitioner is said to be husband of the
informant and their marriage took place on 06.06.2010. As per
the informant, at the time of her marriage her father gave
ornaments and cash amount for purchasing an Indigo Car as
gifts and when she arrived at her Sasural after the marriage, her
husband's sisters and parents took her ornaments on the pretext
of keeping the same in the locker and started demanding Rs.
20,00,000/- in cash and a luxury vehicle and for this, they
assaulted her and in that acts, the petitioner was also involved
with his family members and as per the informant, she remained
silent and bore the behavior of her in-laws for some period but
when they asked her father to fulfill their demand of Rs.
20,00,000/- and vehicle with giving a threat to take back the
informant if their demand would not be fulfilled after some
days, her father gave them a fix deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- but
even then the behavior of the accused including the petitioner
did not change and they continued to harass her in many ways
and when she became pregnant, the accused including the
petitioner started making pressure upon her to abort the unborn
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39100 of 2015 dt.11-02-2025
child and reiterated their earlier demand and also threatened to
kill her, if, their demand would not be fulfilled. On 03 rd June,
2011 she was ousted by her father-in-law from his house when
she was carrying seven months old pregnancy and she had to
spend the whole night outside the house of the accused. The
informant further alleged that on the occasion of Durga Puja
festival she was not permitted to enter into the house by the
accused and she was pushed by the accused from the stair which
caused injuries to her and her son and then she returned back to
her parents' house. The informant further alleged that her
husband was transferred to Goa then she, her brother and
mother went to her husband's posting place in the hope of
resuming a happy conjugal relation with the petitioner where
they met the petitioner firstly at his posting place from where
they were brought by the petitioner to his residing place but
thereafter, the petitioner started assaulting her in front of her
mother and brother and also lodged a false case against them at
the local police station with the allegation of theft and assault
which were completely false and the local police rebuked the
petitioner after verifying the occurrence and knowing the truth
in the allegations. The informant further alleged that one day
before the registration of the FIR of the present matter, in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39100 of 2015 dt.11-02-2025
night, her father-in-law and two other persons came to her
parental house (naihar) in drunken condition and started
abusing her and reiterated the demand of Rs. 20,00,000/- and a
vehicle and also threatened to dissolve her marriage with
petitioner by giving her divorce and also assaulted her and
misbehaved with her mother and during that course, put a pistol
at her temple and got her signature forcefully on blank papers.
From this prosecution story, petitioner's specific role in
torturing the informant physically and mentally has been alleged
and in this regard, the occurrence which is said to have taken
place with the informant, her brother and mother in Goa
allegedly committed by the petitioner is relevant. Here it is
important to mention that the petitioner himself accepted in his
supplementary affidavit that at his house, O.P. No.2 and her
family members manhandled him on 28.06.2012 in Goa where
he worked at that time. The said fact goes in favour of
informant's story as to her and her parental family members
having visited to Goa at the petitioner's posting place, though,
regarding the said alleged incident there is contradiction in
between the petitioner's story and the informant's story but it is
a subject matter of trial but however, the said fact can be
deemed to be in favour of the prosecution to some extent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39100 of 2015 dt.11-02-2025
During the course of investigation, the informant remained firm
to her main allegations and her family members also supported
her allegations. The informant is an educated lady and working
in a Bank on the post of Probationary Officer and in her
marriage her parents spent a considerable amount of money in
the marriage functions and after spending about three years with
the petitioner and having begotten a child from the conjugal
relationship with the petitioner she had to take the recourse of
legal action by filing an FIR against the petitioner which
generally does not happen unless an extreme situation is
available and this Court finds no strong reason on the part of the
informant to lodge a false case against her husband after having
spent three years in his company and giving birth to a child
while on the other hand, the petitioner might have a reason to
get rid of the informant on account of her serious disease
Hepatitis-B. Though, the petitioner had filed his divorce case
prior to the registration of the FIR of the present matter but
merely by this fact, it cannot be presumed that the informant
lodged her case with malafide intention and having revengeful
attitude. Though the petitioner's sisters have been exonerated by
the police but on different ground as they are stated to be the
married sisters of the petitioner and after examining some
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39100 of 2015 dt.11-02-2025
witnesses, the investigating officer found the petitioner's sisters
residing in their sasural during the relevant period of time,
however, in view of the specific allegation levelled against the
petitioner by the informant with regard to cruelty as discussed
above the allegations levelled against the petitioner cannot be
treated equal to the allegations levelled against the petitioner's
sisters. Though the police submitted final form in Gandhi
Maidan P.S. Case No. 212 of 2013 lodged by the informant
against her father-in-law and others but as per above
submission, the said matter is still sub judice and the case diary
of the said P.S. case is also available before this Court of which
paragraph no. 3 shows that there was some injuries on the body
of the informant and she was referred to P.M.C.H. by the police
for medical treatment, though during investigation, the police
could not have gotten all the relevant papers of treatment and
due to this reason as well as considering other technical aspect
as to the presence of petitioner's father at his official place the
police submitted final form against the prosecution deeming due
to lack of evidence, but however, one circumstance as to the
informant being in injured condition when she appeared before
the police for lodging her FIR also goes in favour of the
prosecution to some extent in the present matter also. In view of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39100 of 2015 dt.11-02-2025
these discussed facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the
allegations levelled by the informant in her FIR are not frivolous
or vexatious and this court does not find convincing materials to
believe that the informant has lodged her FIR with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on her husband and the facts
and circumstances of this matter are entirely different from the
cited cases and the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the above referred judgments do not help the
petitioner on account of his case being entirely different in
context of the prosecution story. Furthermore, the defences
taken by the petitioner are to be examined by the trial court in
respect of which a right conclusion can only be made after
taking evidences from both the sides and in my opinion, it will
not be proper to exonerate the petitioner from the allegations at
the initial stage of his trial without taking evidences. As such,
this Court finds no merit in this petition and the order impugned
has been rightly passed, hence, the instant criminal
miscellaneous petition stands dismissed.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
maynaz/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 28.01.2025
Uploading Date 11.02.2025
Transmission Date 11.02.2025
