Patna High Court
Anil Sharma vs The State Of Bihar on 11 February, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36036 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3117 Year-2018 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE District-
Vaishali
======================================================
1. Rameshwar Prashad Sharma
2. Maya Prashad, W/o Rameshwar Prashad Sharma
Both are R/O C/A, P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, Malahi Pakdi, P.S.-
Kankarbagh, District-Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anita Devi, W/o Late Surendra Sharma, R/o Village-Gandhi Ashram, Ward
No.22, P.S-Hajipur, District-Vaishali, Bihar.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 10450 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3117 Year-2018 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE District-
Vaishali
======================================================
1. Anil Sharma, Son of Rameshwar Prashad Sharma
2. Archna Sharma, Daughter of Rameshwar Prashad Sharma
3. Veena Sharma, Wife of Anil Sharma
4. Sharwan Sharma,
All are R/o. C/A, PC Colony, Kankarbagh, Malahi Pakdi, P.S.- Kankarbagh,
Dist.- Patna
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anita Devi, Wife of Late Surendra Sharma, R/o Village - Gandhi Ashram,
Ward No. 22, P.S.- Hajipur, District - Vaishali, Bihar
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 36036 of 2021)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. A.G.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Mirityunjay Kumar, Advocte
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 10450 of 2021)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.G
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Mirityunjay Kumar, Advocte
======================================================
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36036 of 2021 dt.11-02-2025
2/14
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 11-02-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP appearing on behalf of the State duly assisted by
learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2.
2. Both applications has been filed by the petitioners
for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 23.07.2019
passed by learned S.D.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur in connection
with Complaint Case No. C1 3117 of 2018 corresponding to
Tr. No.2776 of 2019, whereby the learned Jurisdictional
Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 498-A/ 34 and
323 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') as well as
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the
petitioners and others.
3. The case, in brief, as per complainant namely,
Anita Devi, that the marriage between her daughter Munmun
Kumari and Sujit Sharma was solemnized on 28.04.2017 as
per the Hindu rites and customs and the complainant gave the
amount of Rs.12,00,000/- in cash as gift and Rs. 4,70,000/-
to accused no.1, 2 and 6 for expenditure in marriage, Rs.
1,25,000/- to accused no.2 and 7 for purchase of cloths and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36036 of 2021 dt.11-02-2025
also gave the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for purchase of gold
ornaments and Rs. 20,000/- for purchase of silver
ornaments. It is further alleged that accused No.2, 3, 4, 5 and
7 started cruelty for non-fulfilment of a four wheeler vehicle
as a dowry and evicted the daughter of the complainant from
her matrimonial home. It is further alleged that after eviction
from the shared house, relative of the complainant mediated
the matter and with the efforts of one close relative, namely,
Sujit Sharma, matter was settled with the condition that the
complainant shall pay the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to
petitioner against four wheeler vehicle and, thereafter,
daughter of the complainant joined the company of her
husband, namely Sujit Sharma and went to the Banglore,
where accused no.2 and 5 were also resided and both these
persons usually committed cruelty in absence of husband of
her daughter. Said information was given to the complainant
by her daughter that her husband used to torture her and in
presence of her husband, accused no.2 misbehaved with her
also and after making objection, she was subjected to the
cruelty, where during the treatment it was noticed by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36036 of 2021 dt.11-02-2025
daughter of the complainant that miscarriage was done due to
serious ill-treatment and beating by the accused persons.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel that
petitioners are in-laws and distant relatives of the daughter of
the complainant. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners that matter has been
compromised between the parties and in terms of
compromise payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh)
towards final settlement amount was already paid in two
installments by way of Demand Draft to daughter of opposite
party. It is further submitted that the first installment of
Rs.2,00,000/- shall be paid by the petitioners to the
complainant/opposite party no.2 at the time of presentation
of first motion of divorce by mutual consent by way of
demand draft and second and final installment of Rs.
2,00,000/- shall be paid at the time of presentation of the
second motion of divorce by mutual consent by way of
demand draft. It is further submitted that both the parties are
agreed mutually that all the matters/issues/disputes arising
out of the matrimonial relationship between the parties stand
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36036 of 2021 dt.11-02-2025
fully settled as per the terms of this settlement.
5. Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel
for the opposite party no.2 affirmed that the matter has been
compromised between the parties before the S.D.J.M.
Vaishali at Hajipur and, as of now, no dispute is pending
between the parties.
6. It would be apposite to re-produce the
settlement terms of Mediation Centre, Vaishali at Hajipur,
which is as under :-
"SETTLEMENT DEED/M.O.U.
This Settlement Deed/Memorandum of Understanding is
made at Hajipur, Vaishali, Bihar, on this Nineteenth day of
March, 2024:-
BETWEEN
1. SUJIT SHARMA (HUSBAND)
SON OF SHRI KAMESHWAR PRASAD
AGED ABOUT-46 YEARS
RESIDENT OF CA/53, P.C. COLONY
POLICE STATION-KANKARBAGH, DISTRICT-PATNA,
BIHAR-800020
2. SHRI ANIL SHARMA (BROTHER OF SUJIT SHARMA)
AGED ABOUT-48 YEARS
3. SMT. ARCHANA SHARMA (SISTER OF SUJIT SHARMA),
AGED ABOUT-50 YEARS.
4. SMT. MAYA PRASAD (MOTHER OF SUJIT SHARMA) AGED
ABOUT-76 YEARS.
5. SMT. VEENA SHARMA (SISTER-IN-LAW OF SUJIT
SHARMA), AGED ABOUT-37 YEARS
6. SHRI RAMEMESHWAR SHARMA (BROTHER-IN-LAW OF
SUJIT SHARMA, AGED ABOUT-53 YEARS
... .... FIRST PARTY
And
1. MUNMUN SHARMA @ MUNMUM KUMARI (WIFE), WIFE
OF SUJIT SHARMA, DAUGHTER OF LATE SURENDRA
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36036 of 2021 dt.11-02-2025
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT-36 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GANDHI
ASHRAM, OPPOSITE HAJIPUR RAILWAY STATION, POLICE
STATION-SADARTHANA, DISTRICT-VAISHALI, BIHAR-
844101.
2. SMT. ANITA DEVI (MOTHER OF MUNMUM SHARMA @
MUNMUN KUMARI), AGED ABOUT-68 YEARS.
.. ... SECOND PARTY
WHEREAS the First Party (1) and Second Party (1)
had married with each other on Date 28th April 2017 at
Raj Utsav Hall, Vijay Nagar Colony, Hanuman Nagar, Patna
according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and from the said
wedlock no issue was born.
AND WHEREAS owing to the irreconcilable
differences and due to incompatibility of temperaments
and lack of trust First Party (1) and Second Party (1) are
residing separately and have not cohabited since 12th
December 2017 and they have not been able to live
together peacefully as husband and wife and their marriage
has broken down irretrievably and even repeated efforts of
reconciliation and settlement by the family members and
well-wishers of both the parties have failed.
AND WHEREAS on account of intervention and
subsequently the order of the Hon'ble Principal Judge
(Shri. Syed Mohammad Shabbir Alam), Family Court,
Vaishali Court in the counselling held on 15th February
2024, First Party (1) and Second Party (1) have now
decided to dissolve their marriage by a decree of divorce by
mutual consent with a view to bring about peace and
harmony in their lives and their respective families and to
ensure better future for the parties so that all members
may live peacefully in future.
AND WHEREAS now the parties have settled the
matter fully and final amicably on the following terms and
conditions:-
(a) That First Party (1) and Second Party (1) have
agreed that dissolution of marriage is without any
consideration and First Party and Second Party have
settled all their disputes and claims as full and final
settlement regarding Stridhan items, Permanent
maintenance or alimony (past, present or future) and all
other heads, whatsoever. Also, both the parties do not
have any grievance against each other, beyond the terms
of this settlement which they have duly and peacefully
settled to their entire satisfaction.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36036 of 2021 dt.11-02-2025
(b) That the Second Party (1) left the matrimonial
home with all of her belongings on 12th December 2017 in
the presence of her relatives.
(c) That all the stridhan has been received by the
Second Party (1) and nothing is left to be handed over to
the Second Party (1) by the First Party (1).
(d) That both the parties shall not raise any claim/s
or demand/demands against each other in respect of any
claim whatsoever beyond this settlement.
(e) That it has been agreed between the parties (1)
shall pay a total sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs
only) to the second Party (1) towards final settlement
amount to be paid in two installments by way of demand
draft.
(f) That the application for Divorce by Mutual
Consent shall be filed on 21 March 2024 along with the
application for withdrawal of Complaint Cases by the
Second party enumerated herewith-
(i) Matrimonial Case No. 363/18 Pending before
Family Court Vaishal Hajipur
(ii) Maintenance Case No. 13/20 Pending before
Family Court, Vaishali, Hajipur
(iii) Criminal Complaint Case No. 3117/18 Pending
before S.D.J.M. Court, Vaishali, Hajipur filed by Smt. Anita
Devi (mother of Munmun Sharma @ Munmun
Kumari/Second party (2))
(iv) Divorce Case No. 272/23 Pending before Family
Court, Vaishali Hajipur
(g) That Smt. Anita Devi (Second party (2)) had
filed the Criminal Complaint Case No. 3117/18 against the
First Party, pending before SDJM Court Vaishali, Hajipur.
Further, the First Party (2 to 7) had filed two petitions Cr.
MISC-10450/2021 and CR. MISC - 36036/2021 amongst
them in the Hon'ble High Court, Patna for quashing of the
Criminal Complaint Case No. 3117/18. As both the parties
have now settled all their disputes and claims as full and
final settlement regarding Stridhan items, Permanent
maintenance or alimony (past, present or future) and all
other heads, whatsoever Smt. Anita Devi (Second Party
(2)) and her daughter (Second Party (1)) without any
monetary claim or demand or condition agrees to withdraw
the Criminal Complaint Case No. 3117/18 Pending before
S.D.J.M. Court. Vaishali, Hajipur and agrees that she
(Second Party (2)) and her daughter (Second Party (1))
has no Objection to quashing of the Criminal Complaint
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36036 of 2021 dt.11-02-2025
Case No. 3117/18 as per the petitions filed in the Hon'ble
High Court, Patna. To this effect if required, the Second
Party (2) shall provide an affidavit which can be submitted
at the Hon'ble High Court. Patna for quashing the Criminal
Complaint Case No. 3117/18.
(h) That the first installment of Rs. 2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs only) shall be paid by the First Party
(1) to the Second Party (1) at the time of presentation of
the first motiors of Divorce by Mutual consent by way of
Demand Draft, payable in favour of Second Party (1)
(Demand Draft Number 764643)
(i) That the second and final installment of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) shall be paid by
the First Party (1) to the Second Party (1) at the time of
presentation of the second motion of Divorce by Mutual
consent by way of Demand Draft, payable in favour of
Second Party (1) (Demand Draft Number 764644)
(j) That the Second Motion of Divorce by Mutual
Consent shall be presented after all Complaint Cases
enumerated in point (f) above have been Disposed by
respective Court where they are Pending.
(k) That it has been agreed that First Party (1) and
Second Party (1) shall seek divorce by mutual consent
from the competent Court by filing the mutual divorce
petition and shall cooperate each other in filing the same
Under Section 13B(1) and (2) under Hindu Marriage Act
(l) That First Party (1) and Second Party (1) shall
appear before Family Court/competent court within thirty
(30) days of execution of this MOU for obtaining divorce by
mutual consent.
(m) That it has been agreed mutually between both
the parties, that all the matters/issues/disputes arising out
of the matrimonial relationship between the parties stand
fully settled as per the terms of this settlement. That no
Party shall have any other claim against the other Party in
future for all times to come.
(n) That the parties hereto do not have any
grievance left against each other, therefore, in view of the
same, the Second Party undertakes that they shall not
level any allegation on the First Party or cause to act in a
manner so as to harm the reputation and image of the First
Party, in the family or the society at large.
(o) That both the parties undertakes not to harass
each other in any ways after Divorce is granted by the
Hon'ble Court.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36036 of 2021 dt.11-02-2025
(p) That both the parties undertake not to initiate or
proceed any criminal or any civil proceedings against each
other or their respective family members or friends. They
further undertake to withdraw all proceedings/
cases/complaints against each other or their respective
family members or friends, enumerated herewith but not
limited only to the following list:-
(i) Matrimonial Case No. 363/18 Pending before
Family Court Vaishal Hajipur
(ii) Maintenance Case No. 13/20 Pending before
Family Court, Vaishali, Hajipur
(iii) Criminal Complaint Case No. 3117/18 Pending
before S.D.J.M. Court, Vaishali, Hajipur filed by Smt. Anita
Devi (mother of Munmun Sharma @ Munmun
Kumari/Second party (2))
(iv) Divorce Case No. 272/23 Pending before Family
Court, Vaishali Hajipur
(q) That the present Settlement Deed/ M.O.U. has
been made between the parties with their own free sweet
will and without any pressure, coercion or undue influence
from any corner whatsoever and after fully agreeing to its
contents.
(r) That the terms of the compromise have been
read over and duly explained to the parties and witnesses
in their vernacular language Hindi and understood by both
parties and both parties affirm that they shall remain bound
by the terms and conditions of the settlement as stated
hereinabove and shall not breach the same. Both the
parties further affirm and acknowledge that any violation of
any of the terms of the settlement shall entitle the other
party to take appropriate legal recourse against the
defaulting party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, both the parties to this
settlement deed have signed this Memorandum of
Understanding (M.O.U.) on the day, month and year first
above written."
7. It would be apposite to reproduce para-13, 14,
15, 16 & 17 of the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court
passed in the case of Abhishek vs. State of Madhya
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36036 of 2021 dt.11-02-2025
Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1083, 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36036 of 2021 dt.11-02-2025
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 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36036 of 2021 dt.11-02-2025
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36036 of 2021 dt.11-02-2025
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."
8. In view of aforesaid factual submissions, as
matter has been compromised in mediation proceeding
between the parties, where petitioners are in-laws and facing
general and omnibus allegation, therefore, continuing
litigation before learned trial court in view of the legal ratio as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36036 of 2021 dt.11-02-2025
available through Abhishek (supra) would only amount to
abuse of the process of law.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order taking
cognizance dated 23.07.2019 passed by learned S.D.J.M.,
Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Complaint Case No. C1
3117 of 2018 corresponding to Tr. No.2776 of 2019 with all
its consequential proceedings are, hereby, quashed and
set aside qua petitioners.
10. Both these applications stand allowed.
11. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated
to the learned Trial Court immediately.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 14-02-2025
Transmission Date 14-02-2025
