Patna High Court
Santu Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 30 October, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2691 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-677 Year-2023 Thana- NALANDA COMPLAINT CASE
District- Nalanda
======================================================
1. Santu Kumar Son of Late Barat Ravidas village- Rampur, PO- Oap, PS-
Aungari, District- Nalanda
2. Kanchan Devi Wife of Sri Mantu Kumar village- Rampur, PO- Oap, PS-
Aungari, District- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rani Kumari Wife of Sri Santu Kumar village- Rampur, PO- Oap, PS-
Aungari, District- Nalanda
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rohan Verma, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Prashuram Singh, Advocate
For the State : Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 30-10-2025
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners; learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and
learned APP for the State.
2. The present application has been filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order taking cognizance
dated 03.08.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 677C of 2023
by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa,
Nalanda, whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections
498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation is of subjecting the opposite party
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2691 of 2025 dt.30-10-2025
no.2 to various sorts of torture due to non-fulfillment of the
demand of the dowry. It is further alleged that petitioner no. 1,
who is the husband of opposite party no. 2 is having illicit
relationship with the wife of his elder brother (Bhabhi).
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that petitioner no. 1 is the husband of
opposite party no. 2 and petitioner no. 2 is sister-in-law (gotni)
of opposite party no. 2. He further submitted that a triangular
love story has been hatched to implicate the petitioner no. 1 in a
false case. Petitioner is employed in Indian Railways and he
denies all the allegations as has been alleged in the complaint.
Learned counsel further informs that petitioner is ready to live
peacefully with his wife (opposite party no. 2). Learned counsel
further informs that petitioner is not having any illicit
relationship with the wife of his elder brother, who was aged
about 32 years at the time of filing of the present application.
Petitioner has all regard to his Bhabhi and love for his wife. On
these grounds, learned counsel seeks quashing of order of
cognizance dated 03.08.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.
677C of 2023 by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Hilsa, Nalanda.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2691 of 2025 dt.30-10-2025
the opposite party no. 2 informs that the opposite party no. 2,
who is wife of the petitioner no. 1 and is aged about 21 years,
also wants to live along with the petitioner no. 1 subject to the
conditions that petitioners will not subject her to any cruelty nor
they will demand any dowry in future.
6. Heard the parties.
7. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well as, having considered the nature of
allegation made against petitioner no. 2, I find that from the
very perusal of the FIR, it appears that the petitioner no. 2 is
sister-in-law (bhabhi) of petitioner no. 1 and gotni of opposite
party no. 2.
8. The law in respect of matrimonial dispute between
husband and wife is well settled at the same time, the Apex
Court has held that the family members of husband should not
be roped unnecessarily.
9. The Apex Court has demarcated the manner in
which the complaints are entertained by the learned District
Court. It is commonly seen in the society that the entire family
members, as well as, relatives are made accused along with the
husband to face criminal prosecution.
10. The Apex Court in case of Naushey Ali & Ors.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2691 of 2025 dt.30-10-2025
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78,
considering the entirety of matters, particularly dealing with the
misuse of Section 498 of IPC, referring to its earlier judgment,
finally concluded that offences arising out of matrimonial
dispute particularly relating to dowry etc. or a family dispute
where wrong is committed to the victim by the offenders and his
family, can be settled amicably and also in light of the recent
judgment of Apex Court in the case of Navneesh Aggarwal &
Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 963, I
find that no case under Section 498A of IPC is made out against
petitioner no. 2. Accordingly, the entire proceeding including
the order dated 03.08.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 677C
of 2023 by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Hilsa, Nalanda are hereby set aside and quashed to the extent
it relates to petitioner no. 2.
11. The matrimonial dispute is not an offense
against the society rather a matrimonial dispute is a private
conflict between spouses and does not inherently constitute an
offence against society. The Apex Court in the case of B.S.
Joshi v. State of Haryana, reported in, (2003) 4 SCC 675, in
paragraph nos. 12 and 13 has held as under:-
" 12. The special features in such
matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the
duty of the court to encourage genuine
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2691 of 2025 dt.30-10-2025
settlements of matrimonial disputes.
13. The observations made by this
Court, though in a slightly different context, in
G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [(2000) 3 SCC 693 :
2000 SCC (Cri) 733] are very apt for
determining the approach required to be kept in
view in a matrimonial dispute by the courts. It
was said that there has been an outburst of
matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage
is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which
is to enable the young couple to settle down in
life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial
skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume
serious proportions resulting in commission of
heinous crimes in which elders of the family are
also involved with the result that those who
could have counselled and brought about
rapprochement are rendered helpless on their
being arrayed as accused in the criminal case.
There are many other reasons which need not be
mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial
litigation so that the parties may ponder over
their defaults and terminate their disputes
amicably by mutual agreement instead of
fighting it out in a court of law where it takes
years and years to conclude and in that process
the parties lose their "young" days in chasing
their "cases" in different courts.
12. Recently also, the Apex Court in the case of
Mange Ram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another (Special
Leave Petition (Criminal) No.10817 of 2024), in paragraph nos.
25, 31 and 32 has reiterated that in cases, particularly, related to
dowry, opportunity be given to the parties first to reconcile,
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2691 of 2025 dt.30-10-2025
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 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."
13. So far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, who
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2691 of 2025 dt.30-10-2025
is the husband of opposite party no. 2 is ready to settle the
dispute amicably outside the Court.
14. The petitioner no. 1 may proceed to settle the
strained matrimonial relationship amicably, the learned District
Court shall also strive till last to settle the dispute outside the
Court
15. Petitioner no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 have
agreed to appear before the learned District Court on 08.12.2025
at 10:30 AM.
16. Learned District Court is directed to take
necessary steps to refer the matter before the learned Mediator
of the District Mediation Center.
17. Learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center
concerned shall make his/her best efforts to settle the dispute
between the parties amicably and thereafter submit his/her
report before the concerned learned District Court, well within a
period of four months, till then, no coercive action shall be
taken against the petitioner no. 1 in connection with the
aforesaid case.
18. In case, the parties resolve their dispute amicably,
then the proceeding is required to be dropped in light of the law
laid down by the Apex Court as referred hereinabove.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2691 of 2025 dt.30-10-2025
19. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner no. 1
to appear on 08.12.2025 before the learned District Court or any
date fixed by the learned Mediator, the interim protection
granted to the petitioner no. 1 shall automatically lose its force.
20. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the petitioner
no. 1 and he fails to reconcile, then in that case, the learned
District Court shall proceed with the trial. In case, it is
deliberate on the part of the opposite party no.2 to reconcile,
then in that case, the interim protection granted to petitioner no.
1 shall continue and the trial shall proceed in accordance with
law.
21. Accordingly, the present quashing application
stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 04.11.2025
Transmission Date 04.11.2025
