Patna High Court
Ramesh Choudhary @ Ramesh Rajak vs The State Of Bihar on 26 June, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21717 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
1. Ramesh Choudhary @ Ramesh Rajak Son Of Late Birju Rajak Resident Of
Sardha Nagar Kanhauli Math, P.S. - Mithanpura, District - Muzaffarpur
2. Suresh Chaudhary Son Of Late Ram Sagar Choudhary Resident Of
Chanakya Bihar Gobarshi, P.S. - Sadar, District - Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Neha Kumari Daughter Of Ashok Kumar Resident Of Rajak Mohalla Upper
Kelwin Road, Rekabganj, P.S. - Tatarpur, District - Bhagalpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md Ataul Haque
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nityanand
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 26-06-2025
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the parties.
2. Present petition is being filed on behalf of
petitioners for quashing the order dated 14.08.2023 as
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Bhagalpur in
Criminal Revision No. 30 of 2021 by which the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Bhagalpur erroneously partly
allowed the Revision Application of O.P. no. 2 and hold
that the prima-facie case is made out against the petitioners
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21717 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
2/11
and set aside the order dated 27.01.2021 passed by the
learned S.D.J.M., Bhagalpur.
3. The brief fact of this case as per FIR, the
informant/ O.P. No. 2 namely, Neha Kumari solemnized her
marriage on 19.11.2017 with co-accused namely, Aditya
Kumar @ Dipu, son of Late Laxmi Narayan, resident of Khadi
Bhandar, Shastri Nagar, Chitragupt Mandir road, near to
Bharti Niketan School, P.S.- Bagarmithanpura, District
Muzaffarpur. It is alleged that the petitioners including other
co-accused persons started torturing O.P. No. 2 physically
and mentally after solemnization of marriage due to non-
fulfillment of demand of dowry as raised for Rs. 2 lakh. It is
also pointed out that in connection with alleged aforesaid
demand on 06.10.2019, her husband namely Aditya Kumar
@ Dipu came to her paternal home with both petitioners and
again demanded Rs. 2 lakh. Lastly it is stated that her
husband solemnized two marriage prior to her and this fact
was concealed from her.
4. With aforesaid allegations/informatio Bhagalpur
Mahila P.S. Case No. 01 of 2020 was lodged against
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21717 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
3/11
petitioners and other named co-accused persons on
10.01.2020
for the offences punishable under Section 323,
341, 498(A) and 34 of IPC and ¾ of D.P. Act.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 is brother-in-law of the
husband of the O.P. No. 2 whereas petitioner no. 2 is the
maternal uncle/mausa of the husband of O.P. No. 2 and they
are distant relatives, admittedly living separately and having
no connection with daily and domestic affairs of O.P. No. 2
and her husband namely, Aditya Kumar @ Dipu. It is
submitted that the thrust of allegation is available against the
husband of informant/ O.P. No. 2. It is pointed out that as
informant came to know about the previous marriages of her
husband, the present case was lodged falsely and entire
family members including relatives total of 9 members made
accused with present case. It is submitted that the allegations
qua raising demand of dowry for Rs. 2 lakh is appearing very
much general and omnibus against petitioner and they are
implicated only being relatives of the husband.
6. While concluding argument, it is submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21717 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
learned Judicial Magistrate not find a prima-facie case against
petitioners and therefore, no cognizance was taken but the
informant/ O.P. No. 2 filed a Revision petition before the
Sessions court, as Cr. Rev. No. 30 of 2021, where the
cognizance order dated 27.01.2021 was set aside and
thereafter, on the basis of revisional order only, the
cognizance was taken against petitioners. It is submitted that
the revisional court failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspects
as discussed and merely on the ground that as petitioners
visited along with husband of O.P. No. 2 to paternal house of
O.P. No. 2, they were implicated with present case. In support
of his submission learned counsel relied upon the legal report
of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through Abhishek vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 1083.
7. Mr. Devendra Kr. Pandey, learned counsel
appearing for O.P. No. 2 submitted that petitioners are the
persons who negotiated the marriage between the parties. It
is pointed out that the revisional court rightly appreciated the
fact that as petitioners visited on specific date i.e., on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21717 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
06.10.2019 alongwith husband of O.P. No. 2 to her paternal
home, in connection with raising demand of dowry of Rs. 2
lakh, the prima-facie case is made out against them.
8. It would be apposite to reproduce FIR, for
better understanding of the factual aspect of this case:-
lsok esa]
Fkkuk v/;{k egksn;
efgyk Fkkuk Hkkxyiqj
egk"k;]
fuosnu gS fd eSa usgk dqekjh ¼mez 25 o'kZ½ firk Jh v"kksd
dqekj jtd] eksgYyk vij fdfYou jksM] jsdkcxat Fkkuk
rkrkjiqj] ftyk Hkkxyiqj dh jgus okyh gWwA esjh "kknh fnukad
19@11@17 dks vkfnR; dqekj mQZ nhiw firk Lo0 y{eh
ukjk;.k irk&[kknh Hk.Mkj "kkL=h uxj fp=xqIr eafnj jksM]
fudV Hkkjrh fudsru fo|ky;] fo"kqunŸk iksLV jeuk]
Fkkuk&uxj feBuiqjk ftyk eqtQ~Qjiqj ls gqbZ FkhA "kknh ds
ckn ,d lky eSa vius llqjky esa jgh FkhA llqjky esa esjh
lkl ¼1½ yrk nsoh ifr Lo0 y{eh ukjk.k ¼2½ jfo jatu
¼3½lquhy dqekj ¼4½larks'k dqekj ¼5½ uun xqfM+;k nsoh rFkk ¼6½
ifr vkfnR; dqekj lHkh is0 Lo0 y{eh ukjk;.k] lHkh lkfdu
[kknh Hk.Mkj "kkL=h uxj fp=xqIr eafnj jksM] fudV Hkkjrh
fudsru fo|ky;] fo"kqunŸk iksLV jeuk] Fkkuk&cxj feBuiqjk
ftyk eqtQ~Qjiqj ¼7½ uaunksb lqjs"k pkS/kjh ¼8½ esjh ekSlh
csch nsoh ifr jes"k pkS/kjh ¼9½ ekSlk jes"k pkS/kjh lkfdu
"kkjnk uxj] dUgkSyh eB pkSjh [kknh Hk.Mkj Fkkuk&cxj
feBuiqjk ftyk eqtQ~Qjiqj ;s lHkh yksx feydj eq>s yxkrkj
izrkfM+r dj ekjihV djrs jgrs FksA rFkk ngst ds nks
yk[k :i;k ekaxrs FksA rax vkdj eSa vius ek;ds vk xbZA
6@10@2019 dks esjs ifr vkfnR; dqekj muds cguksbZ lqj"s k
pkS/kjh rFkk ekSlk jes"k pkS/kjh esjs ek;ds vk, rFkk cksys fd
ngst dk 2 yk[k :i;k nks] rc ge yM+dh ysdj tk,xsA esjs
firkth rFkk HkkbZ yksx dkQh le>k;k fdarq og yksx ugh
ekudj eq>s rFkk esjs firk ,oa HkkbZ dks yIIkM+&FkIiM+ ls
ekjihV fd,] rFkk tku ekjus dh /kedh nsrs gq, cksys fd tc
rd ngst dk nks yk[k ugha nksxs rc rd yM+dh dks ugha ys
tk,xsA fQj Hkh esjs firk ,oa HkkbZ yksx le>kSrk djus esa yxs
gq, FksA ckn esa irk pyk fd esjs ifr igys ls gh nks "kknh
dj pqdk Fkk rFkk nksuksa iRuh dks ngst ds pyrs ekjihV dj
Hkxk fn;kA tcfd eq>ls dqaokjk crkdj "kknh fd;k x;k FkkA
vr% Jheku~ ls izkFkZuk gS fd mijksDr lHkh O;fDr;ksa ij
dkuwuh dkjokbZ dj eq>s U;k; fnykus dh d`ik dh tk,A
ihfM+rk
usgk dqekjh
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21717 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
9. It would be further apposite to reproduce
paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 14 ,15, 16 & 17 of Abhishek Case
(supra), which read as:-
12. The contours of the power to quash
criminal proceedings under Section 482
Cr.P.C. are well defined. In V. Ravi Kumar v.
State represented by Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu
[(2019) 14 SCC 568], this Court affirmed that
where an accused seeks quashing of the FIR,
invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High
Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High
Court to enter into the factual arena to
adjudge the correctness of the allegations in
the complaint. In Neeharika Infrastructure (P).
Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal
No. 330 of 2021, decided on 13.04.2021], a
3-Judge Bench of this Court elaborately
considered the scope and extent of the power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was observed
that the power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly, with circumspection and in the
rarest of rare cases, such standard not being
confused with the norm formulated in the
context of the death penalty. It was further
observed that while examining the
FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought,
the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of
the allegations made therein, but if the Court
thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters
of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by
law, and more particularly, the parameters laid
down by this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of
Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) and State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC
335], the Court would have jurisdiction to
quash the FIR/complaint.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21717 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21717 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
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.
17. In Bhajan Lal (supra), 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21717 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
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 informant
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 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
persons 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 concerned Act (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
concerned Act, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21717 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
private and personal grudge."
10. In view of aforesaid factual aspect, it appears
that the petitioners who are is brother-in-law ( nandosi) and
petitioner no. 2 who is (mausa)/ maternal uncle are distant
relatives and living separately. It further appears that their
implication with present case only out of their relations with
husband of O.P. No. 2 namely, Aditya Kumar @ Dipu. It also
transpires that the thrust of allegations are available against
the husband of O.P. No. 2 and moreover, FIR suggest that
petitioners visited paternal village of O.P. No. 2 alongwith her
husband on occasion of bidagiri. Allegations of raising
demand of dowry is appearing very much general and
omnibus against petitioners, where dispute surfaced after
knowing the fact that husband of O.P. No. 2 had also
solemnized marriage with another girl prior to her marriage.
11. In view of aforesaid by taking guiding note of
Abhishek case (supra), the order as passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Bhagalpur in Criminal Revision
No. 30 of 2021 is hereby quashed/set aside alongwith all its
consequential proceedings, if any.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21717 of 2024 dt.26-06-2025
12. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the
learned trial court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 28.06.2025
Transmission Date 28.06.2025
