Patna High Court
Manish Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 21 March, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83375 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2017 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Manish Kumar, Son of Rohit Panjiyar, Resident of Mohalla-Yachinagar
Benta, Police Station- Laheriasarai
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Megha Kumari, Daughter of Chandra Kishore Mahto @ Kishore Mahto,
Resident of Village- Doghara, P.S- Jaley, District- Darbhanga
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Smiti Bharti, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-03-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP appearing for the State.
2. The present application has been filed for
quashing the order dated 28.08.2023 as passed by learned
S.D.J.M., Darbhanga in CRI No.1311 of 2017, corresponding
to Trial No.1061 of 2023, arising out of Darbhanga Mahila
(Laheriasarai) P.S. Case No.39 of 2017, whereby the learned
trial court has rejected the prayer of the petitioner filed under
Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short
'Cr.P.C.') and ordered for framing of the charge against him
for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504,
506, 354 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83375 of 2023 dt.21-03-2025
2/11
'CrPC') as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act.
3. The case of prosecution in brief is that the
marriage of the informant, namely, Megha Kumari was
solemnized with one Sanjeev Panjiyar, as per Hindu Rites and
Rituals on 18.04.2016, After the marriage, the informant
joined her matrimonial home at Mohalla-Ayachinagar Benta,
Darbhanga. The father-in-law, mother-in-law, devar Manish
Kumar (petitioner), Shushma Rani (Nanad) and Savita Rani
(Nanad) of the informant, were also resided in same house .
The informant further stated that Birendra Nayak,
Suryaprakash Nayak and Savita Devi often visited her
sasural. At the time of marriage, jewellary, house-hold
articles like fridge, TV, furniture etc. besides Rs. 10 Lakh in
cash was given by her parents. After some time, the accused
persons started demanding scorpio vehicle but, due to non-
fulfilment of the said demand, the accused persons started
torturing in various ways. She further stated that the Manish
Kumar (petitioner) also used to tease her physically. The
accused persons also used to suggest her to have sexual
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83375 of 2023 dt.21-03-2025
3/11
relationship with the doctor and the compounder and on being
objected by her, the husband of the informant used to say
that there is nothing wrong in having sex with others. The
accused persons also threatened her to death in case their
demands are not fulfilled.
4. On the basis of aforesaid information, Mahila
(Laheriasarai) P.S. Case No.39 of 2017 was registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506,
354 read with 34 of the IPC as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. Upon completion of investigation, the police
submitted charge-sheet against nine accused persons
including the petitioner for having committed the offences
under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of the IPC as well as
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
6. The learned S.D.J.M., Darbhanga after perusal
of the materials available on record during the course of
investigation, vide order dated 18.12.2017 took cognizance
of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504,
506 read with 34 of the IPC as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83375 of 2023 dt.21-03-2025
4/11
Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner and other
accused persons.
7. Thereafter, a petition under Section 239 of the
CrPC was filed on beahlf of the petitioner for discharge but,
the same was refused by the court of learned S.D.J.M.
Darbhanga vide order dated 28.08.2023.
8. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated
28.08.2023
, the petitioner has filed the present quashing
petition.
9. Ms. Smiti Bharti, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent
person and has been falsely implicated with this case, because
he happens to be the brother-in-law (devar) of the informant.
It is further submitted that from perusal of FIR, it can be said
safely that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner
and, as such, no offence can be attributed to him.
10. It is further submitted that the prosecution
case is quite vague as far as the allegation against the
petitioner is concerned and same not appears legally tenable.
It is further submitted that even if the statement of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83375 of 2023 dt.21-03-2025
witnesses in course of investigation is taken to be true, no
offence can be attributed against this petitioner. It is further
submitted that the investigation of the case appears faulty, as
the Investigating Officer has not investigated into the
credentials of the petitioner, who happens to be a Bank
employee and was working out of State of Bihar and is still
working in Uttar Pradesh. It is further submitted that the
court below ought to have considered the fact that how so
many accused persons jointly commit such an offence. The
learned trial court has passed the order in a mechanical
manner and without application of judicial mind.
11. In support of her submission, learned counsel
for the petitioner has relied upon the legal report of Hon'ble
Supreme Court as available through Geeta Mehrotra vs.
State of U.P. [(2012) 10 SCC 741] in which the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that little matrimonial skirmishes
suddenly erupt, which often assume serious propositions
resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which
elders/youngers of the family are falsely implicated by the
wives. Learned counsel further relied upon the legal report of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83375 of 2023 dt.21-03-2025
Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through K. Subba Rao
vs. State of Telengana [(2018)14 SCC 452], where it
was observed that the court should be careful in proceeding
the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial
disputes and dowry deaths. Learned counsel also relied upon
the Apex Court decision in the case of State of Haryana
and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992
Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335.
12. In view of aforesaid, learned counsel submitted
that so far as this petitioner is concerned, the entire criminal
proceeding including the order to frame charge in connection
with Trial No.1061 of 2023 pending in the court of learned
S.D.J.M. Darbhanga is fit to be quashed/set aside.
13. Learned APP appearing on behalf of State while
opposing the application for discharge submitted that the
petitioner has tortured the informant due to non-fulfilment of
demand of dowry. It is submitted that the court below has
rightly rejected the petition filed under Section 239 of the
CrPC by the petitioner, but fairly conceded that no cognizance
was taken against petitioner in view of only specific allegation
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83375 of 2023 dt.21-03-2025
qua outraging the modesty of O.P. No. 2.
14. Notice as issued against O.P. No. 2 deemed
validly served upon publication qua present proceeding
through newspaper. O.P. No. 2 failed to join present Court
proceeding.
15. Upon perusal of materials available on record
and submissions as canvassed by learned counsel for the
petitioner, it appears that only specific allegation against
petitioner, who is brother-in-law is of outraging the modesty
of O.P. No. 2 occasionally, who is a bank employee and
posted at remote place in Uttar Pradesh. From the impugned
cognizance order, it nowhere appears that the cognizance qua
said allegation was taken against this petitioner i.e., for the
offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC. It appears
that for the rest of the allegations petitioner was simply
named without having any allegation in very mechanical
manner, prima-facie, only being brother of husband of O.P.
No. 2.
16. At this stage, it would be apposite to reproduce
the paragraph no. 102 of Bhajan Lal Case (supra), which
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83375 of 2023 dt.21-03-2025
is 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83375 of 2023 dt.21-03-2025
(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 nay 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83375 of 2023 dt.21-03-2025
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."
17. Considering the aforesaid fact as no cognizance
was taken against petitioner for outraging the modesty, where
the allegation against petitioner is very superficial qua alleged
cruelty, where thrust of allegation is available against
husband of O.P. No. 2. Accordingly, by taking a guiding note
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83375 of 2023 dt.21-03-2025
of Bhajan Lal (supra), it appears that this case is covered
under the guidelines as mentioned in para nos. 5 and 7 as
aforesaid, therefore, impugned order dated 28.08.2023 as
passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Darbhanga with all its consequential proceedings, qua,
petitioner arising thereof as passed in CRI No. 1311 of 2017,
Trial No. 1061 of 2023 in connection with Darbhanga Mahila
(Laheriasarai) P.S. Case No. 39 of 2017, is hereby quashed
and set aside.
18. Hence, this application stands allowed.
19. Office is directed to send a copy of the order to
the learned trial court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 29.03.2025
Transmission Date 29.03.2025
