Patna High Court
Manish Singh vs The State Of Bihar Through Its ... on 8 May, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65781 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-133 Year-2019 Thana- SHRIKRISHNAPURI District- Patna
======================================================
1. Manish Singh, Son of Late Narendra Kumar Singh, Resident Of- C2/31, East Of
Kailash, P.S -Amar Colony, Dist.- New Delhi.
2. Kanti Devi Wife of Late Narendra Kumar Singh, Resident of- C2/31, East Of Kailash,
P.S - Amar Colony, Dist.- New Delhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through its Secretary, Secretariat, Patna- 800001 Bihar.
2. Neha Singh Wife of Manish Singh Resident Of- C2/31, East Of Kailash, P.S. Amar
Colony, Dist.- New Delhi.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanchit Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Murli Dhar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-05-2025
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties.
2. The present application has been preferred by the
petitioners for quashing of Criminal Case No. 2992 of 2019
passed by A.C.J.M.-4, Patna Sadar Court arising out FIR No.
133 of 2019 dated 15.04.2019 at P.S. Shri Krishna Puri,
Patna for the offences punishable under Sections 498 A, 420
and 34 of the I.P.C.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that
informant/O.P. No. 2 was married to Manish Singh on
16.02.2017
. Petitioners told the informant that they are not
able to spend money in marriage due to demonetization, so
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65781 of 2024 dt.08-05-2025
the informant, namely Raj Ballabh Singh gave loan of Rs.
65000/- to his son-in-law on 04.01.2017. Between
06.01.2017 to 27.02.2017, informant gave a total of Rs.
9.50,000/- to the father of petitioner no. 1 i.e. late Mr.
Narendra Kumar Singh and petitioner no. 2 Kanti Devi
through cheques. Informant gave them money because
petitioners said that loan amount would be returned to him
after demonetization. Thereafter, two letters dated
04.01.2019 and 08.02.2019 sent to the petitioners to return
the money, but loan amount was not returned to the
informant.
4. It appears that present matrimonial discord
started in background of aforesaid loan dispute between the
parents of petitioner no. 1 and opposite party no. 2.
5. It appears from submission of learned counsel
appearing for the parties that matter appears compromised
between the parties, where parties settled their disputes and
differences amicably and, therefore, continuing with present
criminal proceedings before the learned Trial Court would only
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65781 of 2024 dt.08-05-2025
amount to abuse the process of court.
6. Upon perusal of record, it appears that joint
compromise between the parties made available to this Court,
where parties appears amicably settled their issues. During
course of argument, learned counsel referred to Memorandum
of Understanding executed between parties at Delhi, on 29 th
day of July 2024, which is as under:-
"MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This deed of Compromise is made at
Delhi on this 29th day of July, 2024, between:
Manish Singh, S/o late Sh Narendra Kumar Singh.
R/o C 2/31, East of Kailash, New Delhi 110065
(HEREINAFTER CALLED THE FIRST PARTY).
AND
Neha Singh W/o. Manish Singh Dio,
late Sh. Raj Ballabh Singh Rio C 2/31. East of
Kailash, New Delhi 110065 (HEREINAFTER
CALLED THE SECOND PARTY).
WHEREAS the marriage was
solemnised between the parties named above
according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies on
16.02.2017 at Patna in the presence of the
parents, relatives of both the parties and after the
marriage the parties lived together as husband
and wife at the matrimonial home.
That due to difference of
temperaments and incompatibility of relations, the
parties could not adjust with each other and
several tigations arose between the parties
including Criminal Case No. 2992/2019 pending
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65781 of 2024 dt.08-05-2025
before the ACIM 4, Patna Sadar Court arising out
of FIR No. 133 of 2019 dated 15.04.2019 at PS
Shri Krishna puri. Patna under sections 498A, 420
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
AND WHEREAS due to the intervention
of the family friends and relatives, an amicable
settlement took place between the parties and the
parties are residing together since January 2022
with each other at their Delhi's home along with
their daughter Dishita Singh aged around 6 years.
The First Party had withdrawn several litigations
including criminal complaints filed by him before
the courts of Delhi including the Divorce Case
pending before the Family Court, SE- Saket and
the only case pending between the parties is now
the Criminal Case No. 2992/2019 pending before
the ACJM 4, Patna Sadar Court arising out of FIR
No. 133 of 2019 dated 15.04.2019 at PS Shri
Krishna Puri, Patna under sections 498A, 420 and
34 of the Indian Penal Code.
AND WHEREAS since the parties have
reconciled all their differences and disputes, in the
interest of peace, lives and child. the parties now
wish to execute the present deed of compromise
on the terms and conditions as follows:-
1. That the marriage between the
parties was solemnised on 16.02.2017 at Patna
and the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 started
residing at their Delhi's home after marriage. They
have a gird child named Dishita Singh aged
around 6 years residing with them at Delhi.
2. That due to continuous rifts between
the Petitioners and the Respondent No. 2, the said
rifts eventually culminated into the said FIR No.
133/2019 PS SK Puri and eventually the Criminal
Case No. 2992/2019 pending before the ACJM 4,
Patna Sadar Court ("Patna Case"). The Informant
in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65781 of 2024 dt.08-05-2025
Patna Case was father of the Second Party who
left for heavenly abode on 01.01.2021.
3. That the First Party had also filed
divorce petition between the Family Court at SE-
Saket, Delhi along with other criminal complaints
which have been already withdrawn in the year
2022 itself by the First party and no case of First
Party against the Second Party is pending before
any court of law.
4. That both the parties have dissolve
their disputes and differences between them and
have been residing together peacefully along with
their daughter since January 2022 and therefore,
the Second party wishes to withdraw all or any
pending litigation between the parties specifically
the Patna Case.
5. That out of love and affection
towards the First Party, the Second Party wishes
to withdraw the Patna Case.
6. That therefore, the parties wish to
and shall file Application/Petition before the Patna
High Court or any other appropriate court, as the
case may be, to have the proceedings quashed in
the Criminal Case No. 2992/2019 pending before
the ACJM 4, Patna Sadar Court arising out of FIR
No. 133 of 2019 dated 15.04.2019 at PS Shri
Krishna Puri, Patna under sections 498A, 420 and
34 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. That this Settlement/compromise
has been arrived at between the parties of their
own accord, free will and without any force,
coercion or undue influence from any quarter.
8. That parties undertake to remain
bound by the terms and conditions contained in
this memorandum of understanding.
9. That the parties will appear before
the Patna High Court or other appropriate Court,
as per the Court directions and will act and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65781 of 2024 dt.08-05-2025
proceed as per the directions of the Court.
IN WITNESSES WHEREOF, the First
Party and the Second Party have put their
respective hands and signed the Memorandum of
Understanding at Delhi, on the date, month and
the year first above written in the presence of the
witnesses hereinafter appearing"
6. Factum of compromise also approved by
learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 as
discussed above. It is submitted that he has no any objection
if criminal proceeding qua petitioners before learned trial
court be quashed in view of compromise.
7. In view of aforesaid, it is submitted by learned
counsel that continuing with present criminal proceeding qua
petitioners before learned trial court would only amount to
abusing the process of courts and, therefore, same be
quashed. In support of his submission, learned counsel also
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.
8. It would be apposite to reproduce para 13, 14,
15, 16 & 17 of the Abhishek's case (supra), which reads
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65781 of 2024 dt.08-05-2025
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65781 of 2024 dt.08-05-2025
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65781 of 2024 dt.08-05-2025
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 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."
9. In view of aforesaid legal and factual submission
and also by taking note of the fact as parties settled their
issues and differences amicably, accordingly, continuing with
the present proceeding before the learned trial court would
only amount to abuse of the process of the court.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65781 of 2024 dt.08-05-2025
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Case No. 2992 of 2019
passed by A.C.J.M.-4, Patna Sadar Court arising out of FIR
No. 133 of 2019 dated 15.04.2019 at P.S. Shri Krishna Puri,
Patna qua petitioners are hereby quashed and set-aside.
11. Accordingly, present quashing petition stands
allowed.
12. Both parties are directed to abide by their terms
and conditions mentioned in the Memorandum of
Understanding dated 29th day of July, 2023, as discussed
above.
13. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the
learned trial court/concerned court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
veena/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 08.05.2025
Transmission Date 08.05.2025
