Patna High Court
Jhagru Rai vs The State Of Bihar on 14 October, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 86162 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-233 Year-2017 Thana- SONBERSA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
1. Jhagru Rai S/O Late Bhikhari Rai
2. Chandrakala Devi @ Chandar Devi W/O Jhagaru Rai
Both are resident of Narkatia, P.S.- Sonbarsha, Dist.- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Veena Kumari W/O Mukesh Kumar, D/O Rajnandan Prasad Yadav, Resident
of Narkatia, P.S.- Sonbarsha, Dist.- Sitamarhi. At Present R/O Vill.-
Ghaghra, Ward no. 8, P.O.- Baburban, P.S.- Parihari, Dist.- Sitamarhi
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Madhubala Verma, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr.Uday Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 14-10-2025
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present quashing
application in respect of petitioner no.1 (Jhagru Rai).
3. Permission accorded.
4. The present application has been filed for quashing
of order dated 24.09.2024 passed in Trial No.4020 of 2024
arising out of Sonbarsa PS Case No.233 of 2017 by the learned
SDJM, Sitamarhi whereby the discharge petition of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 86162 of 2024 dt.14-10-2025
2/4
petitioner has been rejected for the offences under sections 341,
323, 498(A), 307/34 of IPC read with under section ¾ of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
5. In the light of the order/judgment passed by the
Apex Court in the case of Shobhit Kumar Mittal Vs State of
Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 1152, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the
petitioner is being unnecessarily dragged just because she is
mother-in-law of OP No.2, who has no concern with the strained
matrimonial relation of her son with O.P.No.2.
6. Mr. Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P.No.2
has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner to quash
order dated 24.09.2024, on the ground that O.P.no.2 has been
subjected to cruelty- mentally and physically both.
7.Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well as, the fact that aggrieved by the
criminal act of the accused persons, the informant has lodged a
criminal case against the accused persons including petitioner
no.2.
8. I find that the present is one of the cases, in which,
petitioner being the family member have been dragged to face
the present criminal prosecution. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 86162 of 2024 dt.14-10-2025
3/4
Court, in the case of Mange Ram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
& Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.10817 of
2024) has found it to be vexatious in nature and has pleased to
quash the entire proceeding. I find it appropriate to reproduce
the paragraphs no. 25, 31 and 32, which, inter alia are as
follows:
"25. This Court, in Dara Lakshmi Narayana
vs. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735, has made it
clear that family members of the husband ought not to be
unnecessarily roped into criminal proceedings arising out
of matrimonial discord. The Court observed that it has
become a recurring tendency to implicate every member of
the husband's family, irrespective of their role or actual
involvement, merely because a dispute has arisen between
the spouses. It was further held that where the allegations
are bereft of specific particulars, and particularly where the
relatives sought to be prosecuted are residing separately or
have had no connection with the matrimonial home,
allowing the prosecution to proceed would amount to an
abuse of the process of law. The Court noted that criminal
law is not to be deployed as an instrument of harassment,
and that judicial scrutiny must be exercised to guard
against such misuse.
31. We also refer to Gian Singh vs. State of
Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 wherein this Court observed
that where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding
having regard to the fact that the dispute between the
offender and the victim has been settled, although the
offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion,
continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in
futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute
between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored,
securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding
factor. In this regard, a specific reference was made to
offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to
dowry, etc. or a family dispute, where the wrong is basically
to the victim but the offender and the victim have settled all
disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that
such offences have not been made compoundable. The High
Court may, within the framework of its inherent power,
quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or
FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there
is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and
by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 86162 of 2024 dt.14-10-2025
4/4
casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.
32. In Naushey Ali vs. State of U.P., (2025) 4
SCC 78, one of us (Viswanathan, J.) observed in paragraph
32 that proceeding with the trial, when the parties have
amicably resolved the dispute, would be futile and the ends
of justice require that the settlement be given effect to by
quashing the proceedings. It would be a grave abuse of
process particularly when the dispute is settled and
resolved."
9. Considering the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, in the light of the law laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of Mange Ram (surpa), order dated
24.09.2024
passed in Trial No.4020 of 2024 arising out of
Sonbarsa PS Case No.233 of 2017 pending in the court of the
learned SDJM, Sitamarhi is hereby set aside and quashed.
10. The present quashing application stands disposed
of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
chn/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 17.10.2025
Uploading Date NA
Transmission Date NA
