Patna High Court
Shamshoon Nisha Khatoon @ Samsun Nisa ... vs The State Of Bihar on 20 March, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1768 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1033 Year-2022 Thana- NAWADAH COMPLAINT CASE
District- Nawada
======================================================
1. SHAMSHOON NISHA KHATOON @ SAMSUN NISA KHATOON W/O
LATE MD. KHALIL Resident of 20/ 2/ 1, PIKHANA, 3RD LANE, P.S-
GOLABARI, HAORA CORPORATION, HAORA, WEST BENGAL.
2. MD. REYAZUDDIN S/O LATE MD. KHALIL Resident of 20/ 2/ 1,
PIKHANA, 3RD LANE, P.S- GOLABARI, HAORA CORPORATION,
HAORA, WEST BENGAL.
3. RAUSHAN ARA @ ROUSHAN ARA W/O MD. REYAZUDDIN Resident
of 20/ 2/ 1, PIKHANA, 3RD LANE, P.S- GOLABARI, HAORA
CORPORATION, HAORA, WEST BENGAL.
4. MD. IJAJUDDIN @ MD. EZAZUDDIN S/O LATE MD. REYAZUDDIN
Resident of 20/ 2/ 1, PIKHANA, 3RD LANE, P.S- GOLABARI, HAORA
CORPORATION, HAORA, WEST BENGAL.
5. SHABNAM PRAVEEN @ SHABNAM PARVEEN W/O MD. SABIR ALI
Resident of 20/ 2/ 1, PIKHANA, 3RD LANE, P.S- GOLABARI, HAORA
CORPORATION, HAORA, WEST BENGAL.
6. HUSAN ARA @ HUSNA ARA W/O AKHTAR HUSSAIN Resident of 20/
2/ 1, PIKHANA, 3RD LANE, P.S- GOLABARI, HAORA CORPORATION,
HAORA, WEST BENGAL.
7. MD. FAYAZ @ MD. FAIYAZUDDIN S/O LATE MD. KHALIL Resident of
20/ 2/ 1
, PIKHANA, 3RD LANE, P.S- GOLABARI, HAORA
CORPORATION, HAORA, WEST BENGAL.
8. MD. SHABBIR @ MD. SABIR ALI S/O LATE MD. JALIL Resident of 20/
2/ 1, PIKHANA, 3RD LANE, P.S- GOLABARI, HAORA CORPORATION,
HAORA, WEST BENGAL.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. SHAIQUA NAAZ W/O MD. SHAHABUDDIN Resident of 20/ 2/ 1,
PIKHANA, 3RD LANE, P.S- GOLABARI, HAORA CORPORATION,
HAORA, WEST BENGAL- 711101, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
MOHALLA RASULNAGAR, BHADAUNI, P.S AND DISTT.-
NAWADAH.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Adv
: Mr. Alok Kr. Jha, Adv
: Mr. Mukund Kr. Adv
: Mr. Akash Kr. Adv
: Mr. Aditya Raman, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1768 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 20-03-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present quashing petition has been
preferred to quash the order dated 22.11.2022 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nawadah in
Complaint Case No. 1033 of 2022, where cognizance for
the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 341, 323
of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
against the petitioners.
3. Despite service Opposite Party No. 2 failed
to join the present Court proceedings.
4. From the crux of complaint petition it
appears that marriage of complainant was solemnized
with one Md. Shahabuddin on 25.11.2016, where gold
jewellery of Rs. 4 Lakh and utensils of Rs. 2 Lakh were
given as gift, at the time of marriage Md. Shahabuddin
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1768 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
was working in MNC at United Kingdom. It is alleged that
when her husband left job, her in-laws started torturing
her and took away all the jewelleries. Presently Md.
Shahabuddin is employed in TCS at Kolkata. After some
days of marriage Md. Shahabuddin along with his family
members started torturing and demanding Rs. 2 Lakhs
from O.P. No. 2, which was fulfilled by father of O.P. No.
2. It is alleged that O.P. No. 2 never got any money for
her personal expenses. After a year of her marriage she
got pregnant and was cared by her family members not
by her husband and in-laws and delivered a boy namely
Md. Yazanuddin. Upon being assaulted by in-laws O.P.
No. 2 lodged a police case as Golabari P.S. as GDN 2049
dated 20.03.2018 and left her matrimonial home. Upon
persuasion of her father O.P. No. 2 again tried to join her
matrimonial home, where in-laws pressurized to hand
over child to sister-in-law, but upon reluctance O.P. No. 2
was assaulted and detained on room in 26.09.2019 with
her child and was released with help of local residents. For
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1768 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
the aforesaid act of 26.09.2019 complaint was lodged in
Howrah Police Station vide GDN 2481 and left her
matrimonial home. Upon counseling dated 07.08.2019
and 20.09.2019 O.P. No. 2 again joined her matrimonial
home and was assaulted and tortured again by her in-
laws and a further complaint was lodged in local police
station vide GDN 1048 dated 15.10.2019. Thereafter,
O.P. No. 2 left her matrimonial home and went to her
parental home. When reconciliation took place between
them her in-laws again demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs, but on
being pressurized by in-laws her parents agreed for O.P.
No. 2 to join her matrimonial home. Again on 11.06.2022
O.P. No. 2 was badly assaulted and was tried to be killed
by setting her on fire, upon alarm local residents saved
her. Since, then O.P. No. 2 has been residing at her
parents home. When her parents tried to convince Md.
Shahabuddin again, they all in one voice demanded Rs. 5
Lakhs. Md. Shahabuddin consummated his second
marriage.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1768 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
5. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submitted that from the perusal of complaint,
no prima facie case is made out against petitioners for the
reasons that petitioner no. 1 is mother-in-law, petitioner
no. 2 is elder brother-in-law, petitioner no. 3 is wife of
petitioner no. 2, petitioner no. 4 is son of petitioner no. 2,
petitioner no. 5 & 6 are sisters-in-law, petitioner no. 7 is
younger brother-in-law and petitioner no. 8 is husband of
petitioner no. 5. It is submitted that petitioners are living
separately and having no connection with daily and
domestic affairs of O.P. No. 2 and her husband. It is
submitted that their implication appears only out of being
close relative with ulterior and oblique motive, suggesting
harassing attitude. It is a classical case of malicious
prosecution and misuse of provisions of Section 498-A of
Indian Penal Code. While concluding the argument, it is
submitted that even from the perusal of complaint
petition, the allegation qua petitioners is appearing very
much general and omnibus.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1768 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
6. In support of his submissions, learned
counsel relied upon the legal reports of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as reported in the matter of Abhishek
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1083.
7. Learned APP appearing for the State while
opposing the application submitted that petitioners being
in-laws played active role towards alleged mental and
physical cruelty to O.P. No. 2, by raising demand of
dowry.
8. It would be apposite to reproduce relevant
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1768 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1768 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1768 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
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 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,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1768 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1768 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
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
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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1768 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
(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 private and
personal grudge."
9. In view of aforesaid legal and factual
submissions as petitioners appear sisters-in-law, mother-
in-law, brothers-in-law living separately, having no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1768 of 2024 dt.20-03-2025
connection with daily and domestic affairs of O.P. No.2,
where allegation of cruelty is also appearing very much
general and omnibus against them, accordingly, in view of
aforesaid factual background and by taking guiding note
of Abhishek Case (supra), impugned order of taking
cognizance dated 22.11.2022 with all its consequential
proceedings, qua, all above named petitioners arising
thereof as passed in connection with Complaint Case No.
1033 of 2022 pending before learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah is hereby quashed and set
aside.
10. Hence, this application stands allowed.
11. TCR (Trial Court Records), if any, be
returned to learned trial court along with the copy of this
judgment.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
S.Tripathi/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 22.03.2025
Transmission Date 22.03.2025
