Patna High Court
Sachida Nand Sharma vs The State Of Bihar on 14 May, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23249 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2022 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Jehanabad
======================================================
1. Sachida Nand Sharma Son of Late Lakshmi Singh, Resident of Village-
Mithapur, P.O.- Lai, P.S.- Bihta, District- Patna, Bihar-801112.
2. Sunaina Devi Wife of Sachida Nand Sharma Resident of Village- Mithapur,
P.O.- Lai, P.S.- Bihta, Mithapur, District- Patna, Bihar-801112.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Indu kumari Singh w/o- Chandan Kumar, D/o- late Arjun Singh, R/O-
village Narayanpur, P.O.- Patiyava, P.S. - Shakurabad, Distt - Jehanabad.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Muskan Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Vinod Shanker Modi
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 14-05-2025
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties.
2. The present application has been preferred by
the petitioners for quashing the cognizance order dated
23.11.2023
as passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Jehanabad arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No.
14/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A,
506, 376, 379 and 34 of the I.P.C. and ¾ of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23249 of 2024 dt.14-05-2025
informant/O.P. No. 2, namely Indu Kumari Singh was married
with Chandan Kumar, son of petitioners as per Hindu rites and
ritual and after marriage she joined her matrimonial home, where
she lived for only 10 days. Thereafter, she was tortured by
petitioners in connection with demand of dowry raised for Rs. 5
lacs and one four wheeler vehicle. She further alleged that after
some days, she came to know that her husband Chandan Kumar
has illicit relation with one Nilam Roy and when she told about this
fact to her in-laws, they were adamant to perform marriage of her
husband with said girl and told that her marriage will be performed
with their second son namely, Kunal Kumar. On 10.11.2021 when
her husband Chandan Kumar had gone to Kurji, Danapur, on the
same night Kunal Kumar (brother-in-law) made physical relation
with her without her consent and when she pressurised him for
marriage, then the petitioners and other co-accused persons
ousted her from matrimonial home after physical assault. She
further alleged that she alongwith her brother came back to her
matrimonial home on 13.03.2022 and while returning so, her in-
laws assaulted them bruttaly.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners that petitioners are in-laws and they are facing very
general and omnibus allegation qua alleged cruelty as committed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23249 of 2024 dt.14-05-2025
upon opposite party no. 2. It is submitted that as a matter of
subsequent development, the dispute and differences of opposite
party no. 2 was compromised with her husband, namely Chandan
Kumar and thereafter she is living happily with him since last more
than one year. It is submitted that in view of aforesaid
development, continuing of present proceedings would only
amount to abuse of process of court of law and, therefore,
cognizance order qua petitioners be set aside/quashed. In support
of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the legal report of
Hon'ble Supreme Court as passed in the matter of Abhishek vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC Online SC
1083.
5. Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, learned senior counsel
appearing for opposite party no. 2 submitted that the allegation of
cruelty as per FIR is also available against petitioners. It is
submitted that in fact these petitioners were responsible for the
initiation of entire events. However, the factum of compromise as
submitted above by learned counsel appearing for petitioners
could not disputed by Mr. Ojha appearing for opposite party no. 2.
In support of his submission, Mr. Ojha relied upon the legal report
of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through Samar Ghosh v.
Jaya Ghosh, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23249 of 2024 dt.14-05-2025
6. 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's case (supra) 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23249 of 2024 dt.14-05-2025
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,
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23249 of 2024 dt.14-05-2025
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23249 of 2024 dt.14-05-2025
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."
7. It would be apposite to reproduce para-101 of the legal
report of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Samar Ghosh,
(supra) which are as under:-
"101. No uniform standard can ever be laid
down for guidance, yet we deem it
appropriate to enumerate some instances of
human behaviour which may be relevant in
dealing with the cases of "mental cruelty".
The instances indicated in the succeeding
paragraphs are only illustrative and not
exhaustive:
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial
life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony
and suffering as would not make possible for
the parties to live with each other could come
within the broad parameters of mental
cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire
matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23249 of 2024 dt.14-05-2025
abundantly clear that situation is such that the
wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to
put up with such conduct and continue to live
with other party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot
amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of
language, petulance of manner, indifference
and neglect may reach such a degree that it
makes the married life for the other spouse
absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The
feeling of deep anguish, disappointment,
frustration in one spouse caused by the
conduct of other for a long time may lead to
mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and
humiliating treatment calculated to torture,
discommode or render miserable life of the
spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and
behaviour of one spouse actually affecting
physical and mental health of the other
spouse. The treatment complained of and the
resultant danger or apprehension must be
very grave, substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied
neglect, indifference or total departure from
the normal standard of conjugal kindness
causing injury to mental health or deriving
sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental
cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than
jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which
causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and
emotional upset may not be a ground for
grant of divorce on the ground of mental
cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal
wear and tear of the married life which
happens in day-to-day life would not be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23249 of 2024 dt.14-05-2025
adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of
mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a
whole and a few isolated instances over a
period of years will not amount to cruelty. The
ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly
lengthy period, where the relationship has
deteriorated to an extent that because of the
acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged
party finds it extremely difficult to live with
the other party any longer, may amount to
mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an
operation of sterilisation without medical
reasons and without the consent or knowledge
of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes
vasectomy or abortion without medical reason
or without the consent or knowledge of her
husband, such an act of the spouse may lead
to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have
intercourse for considerable period without
there being any physical incapacity or valid
reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or
wife after marriage not to have child from the
marriage may amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of
continuous separation, it may fairly be
concluded that the matrimonial bond is
beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction
though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to
sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not
serve the sanctity of marriage; on the
contrary, it shows scant regard for the
feelings and emotions of the parties. In such
like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty."
8. Considering the aforesaid factual and legal
submissions and by taking note of fact as petitioners are in-laws,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23249 of 2024 dt.14-05-2025
against whom the allegation as to oust opposite party no. 2 from
matrimonial home appears very general and omnibus and,
moreover, as a matter of subsequent development, opposite party
no. 2 under compromise started to live together with her husband
namely, Chandan Kumar, son of petitioners, according by taking
note of Abhishek's case (supra), order of cognizance order
dated 23.11.2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Jehanabad arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No.
14/2022 is hereby set aside and quashed qua both above named
petitioners with all its consequential proceedings.
9. Accordingly, present quashing petition stands
allowed.
10. Let copy of this order be sent to the trial court,
without delay.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
veena/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 14.05.2025
Transmission Date 14.05.2025
