[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Dhananjai Jha And Anr vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 10 February, 2026
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32624 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-283 Year-2016 Thana- SHASTRINAGAR District- Patna
======================================================
1. Dhananjai Jha, Son of Late Baldeo Jha,
2. Nilima Jha, Wife of Dhananjai Jha, Both Resident of Flat No. 203, Veena
Shree Apartment, New Punaichak, P.S.- Shastrinagar, District- Patna-
800023.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Tanushree Sandilya Jha, Ex-Wife of Avinash Jha, Daughter of Amarnath
Mishra, Resident of 203, Dhaneshwar Heritage, Priya Darshi Nagar, P.S.-
Rupaspur, District- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Kripa Nand Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 10-02-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Party
No.2 (O.P. No.2).
2. The present application has been filed on behalf
of the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 23.04.2018
passed in Shastrinagar P.S. Case No.283 of 2016 by the learned
Sub-Judge IV-cum-A.C.J.M., Patna (hereinafter referred to as
'Magistrate') wherein cognizance for offences under Sections
498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections
3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has been taken
against the petitioners who are in-laws of the informant (O.P.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
2/20
No.2) and also against her husband.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the
marriage between O.P. No.2 and Avinash Jha (co-accused), son
of the petitioners, was solemnized on 10.12.2006 at Patna as per
Hindu rites and rituals with the consent of both families. At the
time of marriage, O.P. No.2 was employed in Japan, whereas
her husband was employed in a company at Sweden. It is stated
that after marriage, she was subjected to mental and physical
cruelty on account of demand for dowry, including a luxury car
and an apartment at Delhi, and was humiliated and assaulted by
her husband and in-laws (petitioners herein). Further allegations
have been made that substantial articles were given by her
parental family, including gold, silver, cash, furniture, utensils,
clothes, and household articles at the time of her marriage and
on the birth of their daughter on 16.04.2010 in Sweden, but her
streedhan was neither returned nor accounted for. It is also
alleged that during her stay abroad and in India, she was
compelled to transfer her salary to the accounts of her father-in-
law and was subjected to repeated acts of harassment and
assault. Allegations of forcible extraction of money, snatching of
ATM cards by her father-in-law and cheque books, and
unauthorized withdrawal of funds have also been made. The
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
3/20
O.P. No.2 has further alleged that she was subjected to cruelty
during her pregnancies, including pressure for sex determination
tests and attempts to compel her to abort the female foetus. It is
stated that she gave birth to her second daughter on 15.05.2015
in Sweden, and continued to face ill-treatment from her husband
and in-laws. In between 2006 to 2014, O.P. No.2 had handled
everything alone, from her office works to household works and
her husband had merely focused on his career. Allegations have
also been made regarding deception in obtaining her signatures
on documents written in a foreign language, which resulted into
dissolution of her marriage with Avinash Jha (co-accused) vide
judgment dated 29.08.2014 passed by the Gävle District Court
in Sweden, without her informed consent. It has been alleged
that on 20.06.2016, when the O.P. No.2 went to her matrimonial
home at Patna along with her father and some relatives to
demand return of her jewellery and belongings, she was
threatened with dire consequences. On the basis of these
allegations, O.P. No.2 lodged a written report on 20.06.2016
before the In-charge of Shastrinagar Police Station alleging
cruelty and dowry-related harassment by her husband and in-
laws. On the basis of the said written report, Shastrinagar P.S.
Case No. 283 of 2016 dated 20.06.2016 was registered under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
4/20
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, where after the investigation, the
police submitted charge-sheet on 31.01.2018 bearing C.S. No.25
of 2018.
4. After perusal of the materials collected during
the course of investigation, the learned Magistrate, vide
impugned order dated 23.04.2018, took cognizance for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A & 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act against the three accused persons, namely, Avinash Jha,
Dhananjai Jha (petitioner no.1) and Nilima Jha (petitioner no.2).
Petitioners, being aggrieved by the said order of cognizance
against them, have preferred this application praying to quash
the impugned order dated 23.04.2018 passed against them. This
Court vide order dated 12.10.2018 stayed the further
proceedings in the case as regards petitioner nos.1 & 2.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the
impugned order of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate
and submitted that on bare perusal of the F.I.R. it is explicit that
the marriage between O.P. No.2 and Avinash Jha (son of
petitioners) was solemnized on 10.12.2006 and they were living
separately in different foreign countries, both professionally
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
5/20
employed and earning a substantial income. O.P. No.2 is
presently residing in Japan. It is submitted that the matrimonial
discord arose out of personal differences between the couple
during their stay abroad, culminating in dissolution of marriage
by a decree of divorce dated 29.08.2014 passed by a competent
court in Sweden with the consent of both parties, without the
involvement or knowledge of the petitioners. It is further
submitted that the petitioners, being aged parents, were not
residing with the couple except for a brief period when they
visited India during vacation and had no occasion to interfere in
their conjugal life. Also, the divorce between the couple was
granted in 2014 and the F.I.R. was lodged by the O.P. No.2 in
2016 just to oppress and vex the petitioners.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submitted that there is no material indicating involvement of the
petitioners in any alleged act of cruelty or dowry demand and
that even foreign proceedings revealed serious disputes only
between the spouses, resulting in custody of the minor first child
being granted to the son of the petitioners. It is submitted that
the couple were earning handsome salaries while working in
reputed companies in foreign country, where they had their own
house and were blessed with two children. However, due to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
6/20
matrimonial discord, O.P. No.2 has unnecessarily dragged the
petitioners into the said dispute, despite there being no fault
attributable to them. The petitioners had no role, or influence
whatsoever in the matrimonial life of O.P. No.2 and their son.
Thus, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners,
who are at an advanced stage of their lives. It is further
submitted that the criminal case has been instituted as a
counterblast to an earlier F.I.R. lodged by petitioner no.2 arising
out of an incident at the petitioners' residence and is nothing but
an abuse of the process of law.
7. Learned counsel, moreover, submitted that both
the petitioners are aged about 75 years, and due to subsisting
poor health, they have shifted to and residing at Greater Noida
for their treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi for more than last 5
years. It is submitted that the petitioner no.2 has been diagnosed
with carcinoma and is totally bedridden. Learned counsel
further submitted that both the petitioners have falsely been
implicated with ulterior motive based on concocted and
frivolous story by the O.P. No.2.
8. Learned counsel has put his reliance on various
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including Arnesh
Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr., reported in (2014) 8 SCC
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
7/20
273; K. Subba Rao and Ors. v. State of Telangana and Ors.,
reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452; and Rajesh Sharma and Ors. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., reported in (2018) 10 SCC
472 wherein it has been observed that owing to the surge in
matrimonial disputes in recent times, the instances of false
implication have markedly increased and courts must exercise
due circumspection while proceeding against relatives specially
when the allegations are omnibus. It is, lastly, submitted that the
ingredients of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and Section 3
& 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in no instance, can be found,
thus, the impugned order against the petitioners be quashed to
prevent the abuse of the process of court and for the ends of
justice.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for O.P. No.2
submitted that the allegations made in the F.I.R. disclose a
continuous course of conduct amounting to cruelty and dowry
related harassment, beginning soon after the marriage and
extending over several years, both in India and abroad. Learned
counsel further submitted that the petitioners have provoked and
instigated the co-accused to torture and assault the O.P. No.2. It
is submitted that substantial dowry articles, including gold,
silver, cash, household goods were given at the time of birth of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
8/20
their maiden child, but neither the streedhan was returned nor
they were accounted for. Learned counsel further submitted that
mere residence of spouses abroad does not absolve the
petitioners from their liability, particularly when specific
allegations have been made against them. It is submitted that the
alleged divorce was cunningly obtained in a foreign nation
while the O.P. No.2 was residing with her husband/co-accused
under the same roof, however, O.P. No.2 has filed a Matrimonial
Suit No.884 of 2017 for declaring the divorce obtained in
foreign nation to nullity and now, the said issue is pending
before this Court in appeal in a separate proceeding which is not
required to be dealt within this proceeding. It is further
submitted that the decree of divorce obtained in the foreign
country can neither, by itself, nullify the criminal liability
arising out of the offences committed by the petitioners during
the subsistence of marriage, nor can it be used as a ground to
stifle legitimate prosecution at the threshold. It is submitted that
at the time of taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate is only
to see that prima facie case is made out or not against the
petitioners. It is, lastly submitted that the impugned order is just
and proper, and the present petition seeking quashing of the
impugned order is liable to be dismissed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
9/20
10. Learned A.P.P. for the State supported the
impugned order and submitted that the F.I.R., read as a whole
prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offence under
Sections 498A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act. It is submitted that the investigation has
culminated in submission of charge-sheet against the petitioners
and, therefore, learned Magistrate was justified in taking
cognizance of the offences. Moreover, it is submitted that at the
stage of quashing, the Court is not required to appreciate
evidence or adjudicate upon disputed question of facts, and the
same may be left open to be decided during trial. Therefore, the
impugned order warrants no interference by this Court.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for
petitioners, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 as well as the
learned A.P.P. appearing for the State, and upon perusal of the
materials available on record it is not controverted that the O.P.
No.2 was married to Avinash Jha (son of the petitioners) on
10.12.2006
and they were living apart in different countries due
to their professional employment. In the meantime, the couple
was granted divorce vide judgment dated 29.08.2014 passed by
the Gävle District Court in Sweden with their mutual consent.
However, the validity of the said judgment of divorce is under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
challenge in a separate proceeding. On written complaint of the
O.P. No.2, F.I.R. against the petitioners and their son Avinash
Jha was registered on 20.06.2016 alleging offences punishable
under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under
Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
12. It is pertinent to note that the court owes a duty
to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough
scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of
truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the
sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge,
more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial
dispute.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, time and again,
has also made the stance very clear with respect to the criminal
allegations arising out of matrimonial discords. The Hon'ble
Apex Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, reported in
(2010) 7 SCC 667 has observed as under:
"32. It is a matter of common experience
that most of these complaints under Section
498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the
moment over trivial issues without proper
deliberations. We come across a large
number of such complaints which are not
even bona fide and are filed with oblique
motive. At the same time, rapid increase in
the number of genuine cases of dowry
harassment is also a matter of serious
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have
enormous social responsibility and
obligation to ensure that the social fibre of
family life is not ruined or demolished. They
must ensure that exaggerated versions of
small incidents should not be reflected in the
criminal complaints. Majority of the
complaints are filed either on their advice or
with their concurrence. The learned
members of the Bar who belong to a noble
profession must maintain its noble traditions
and should treat every complaint under
Section 498-A as a basic human problem
and must make serious endeavour to help the
parties in arriving at an amicable resolution
of that human problem. They must discharge
their duties to the best of their abilities to
ensure that social fibre, peace and
tranquillity of the society remains intact. The
members of the Bar should also ensure that
one complaint should not lead to multiple
cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of
the complaint the implications and
consequences are not properly visualised by
the complainant that such complaint can
lead to insurmountable harassment, agony
and pain to the complainant, accused and
his close relations.
35. The ultimate object of justice is to
find out the truth and punish the guilty and
protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a
herculean task in majority of these
complaints. The tendency of implicating the
husband and all his immediate relations is
also not uncommon. At times, even after the
conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to
ascertain the real truth. 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. The
allegations of harassment of husband's
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
close relations who had been living in
different cities and never visited or rarely
visited the place where the complainant
resided would have an entirely different
complexion. The allegations of the
complaint are required to be scrutinised
with great care and circumspection."
(emphasis supplied)
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Geeta
Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., reported
in (2012) 10 SCC 741 has observed as under:
"20. Coming to the facts of this case, when
the contents of the FIR are perused, it is
apparent that there are no allegations
against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji
Mehrotra except casual reference of their
names which have been included in the FIR
but mere casual reference of the names of
the family members in a matrimonial dispute
without allegation of active involvement in
the matter would not justify taking
cognizance against them overlooking the
fact borne out of experience that there is a
tendency to involve the entire family
members of the household in the domestic
quarrel taking place in a matrimonial
dispute specially if it happens soon after the
wedding.
21. It would be relevant at this stage to
take note of an apt observation of this Court
recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao v. L.H.V.
Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3
SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] wherein
also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had
held that the High Court should have
quashed the complaint arising out of a
matrimonial dispute wherein all family
members had been roped into the
matrimonial litigation which was quashed
and set aside. Their Lordships observed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
therein with which we entirely agree that :
(SCC p. 698, para 12)
'12. There has been an outburst of
matrimonial dispute 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.'
The view taken by the Judges in this matter
was that the courts would not encourage
such disputes."
15. Moreover, while taking note of the phenominal
increase in matrimonial disputes in the recent years, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) has observed
as under:
"4. There is phenomenal increase in
matrimonial disputes in recent years. The
institution of marriage is greatly revered in
this country. Section 498-A IPC was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
introduced with avowed object to combat the
menace of harassment to a woman at the
hands of her husband and his relatives. The
fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable
and non-bailable offence has lent it a
dubious place of pride amongst the
provisions that are used as weapons rather
than shield by disgruntled wives. The
simplest way to harass is to get the husband
and his relatives arrested under this
provision. In quite a number of cases,
bedridden grandfathers and grandfathers of
the husbands, their sisters living abroad for
decades are arrested. "Crime in India 2012
Statistics" published by the National Crime
Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs
shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over
India during the year 2012 for the offence
under Section 498-A IPC, 9.4% more than
the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those
arrested under this provision in 2012 were
women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that
mothers and sisters of the husbands were
liberally included in their arrest net. Its
share is 6% out of the total persons arrested
under the crimes committed under Penal
Code, 1860. It accounts for 4.5% of total
crimes committed under different sections of
the Penal Code, more than any other crimes
excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-
sheeting in cases under Section 498-AIPC is
as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate
is only 15%, which is lowest across all
heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are
pending trial of which on current estimate,
nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in
acquittal."
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Subba Rao
(supra) has observed in para 6 as under:
"6. Criminal proceedings are not normally
interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
unless there is an abuse of the process of a
court. This Court, at the same time, does not
hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of
justice. See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
[State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] . The
courts should be careful in proceeding
against the distant relatives in crimes
pertaining to matrimonial disputes and
dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband
should not be roped in on the basis of
omnibus allegations unless specific
instances of their involvement in the crime
are made out. See Kans Raj v. State of
Punjab [Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000)
5 SCC 207 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 935] and
Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P.
[Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P.,
(2014) 16 SCC 551 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri)
536]."
17. Relying on the aforesaid judgments, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana
and Anr., reported in (2025) 3 SCC 756 has observed as under:
"35. In one of the recent pronouncements of
this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P.
[Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., (2023) 15
SCC 488] , authored by one of us (J.B.
Pardiwala, J.), the legal principle applicable
apropos Section 482CrPC was examined.
Therein, it was observed that when an
accused comes before the High Court,
invoking either the inherent power under
Section 482CrPC 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
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."
(emphasis supplied)
18. Taking reference of a recent judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nitin Ahluwalia v State of Punjab
and Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2013 as of para 9,
which is as under:
"Here, the respondent filed the complaint
after the grant of divorce, a month later.
Granted that the same is not expressly
prohibited by law, it certainly begs the
question as to why despite having been
separated from the appellant for almost
three years to the date, did the respondent
consider filing an application with the police
at that relevant time. To entertain the
possibility that the same is nothing but a
counterblast to the fact that the appellant
has two orders in his favour, one by the
Courts in Austria ordering the respondent to
bring the child back to Australia and the
other, by the Courts in Australia, accepting
the appellant's prayer for grant of divorce,
does not appear far-fetched."
In the present case, the F.I.R. lodged by the O.P. No.2 in 2016
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
which is two years after the decree of divorce granted by the
foreign court in the year 2014. Also, the petitioner no.2 has
registered an F.I.R. against the O.P. No.2 and her relatives prior
to that registered by the O.P. No.2.
19. Now, the law with respect to quashing of
criminal proceeding is well settled that while considering a
prayer to quash the criminal complaint and the consequential
proceedings at the threshold, the Court is required to examine
whether the allegations made in the complaint along with
materials in support thereof make out a prima facie case to
proceed against the accused or not. The reference to the same
has been made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments
including State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors.,
reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Pradeep Kumar
Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 1947.
20. In the instant case, upon careful consideration
of the materials available on record and the rival submissions, it
is evident that O.P. No.2 and her husband (Avinash Jha), who is
co-accused, were both professionally employed abroad even
prior to their marriage and, after solemnization of their marriage
on 10.12.2006, continued to reside at different foreign locations,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
including Japan, China and Sweden. The record further
discloses that the couple lived in foreign countries
independently from the petitioners who remained in India. There
is no material to indicate that the petitioners had any physical
proximity or day-to-day control over the matrimonial life of the
couple. Moreover, the allegations contained in the F.I.R., when
read in their entirety, predominantly relate to matrimonial
discord between the spouses during their stay abroad and are
general and omnibus in nature so far as the petitioners are
concerned. Mere bald allegations of instigation are not sufficient
to sustain criminal prosecution against aged parents residing
separately. The marriage between O.P. No.2 and Avinash Jha
(son of the petitioners) stood dissolved by a decree of divorce
dated 29.08.2014 passed by the Gävle District Court in Sweden
with the consent of both parties, whose validity has been
challenged in a separate proceeding. After about two years of
the said divorce judgment passed by the Sweden Court, the
criminal case against the petitioners and their son (Avinash Jha)
was instituted in the year 2016. Accordingly, this Court holds
that no prima facie case is made out with respect to the alleged
offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and
under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
petitioners and that the impugned order taking cognizance
against the petitioners warrants interference by this Court in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
21. Further, the materials on record do not disclose
any evidence collected during investigation showing
involvement of the petitioners in the alleged acts of cruelty,
misappropriation of streedhan or dowry demand. The charge-
sheet appears to have been submitted against the petitioners
without any independent corroboration of their alleged role.
Having regard to the admitted fact that the couple was living
independently abroad and the dispute essentially pertains to
inter se matrimonial differences between the spouses, this Court
is of the considered view that the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) squarely
applies to the facts of this case. Therefore, it is neither expedient
nor in the interest of justice to permit the present prosecution
against the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of this
case, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the
petitioners, who are in advanced stage of their lives, would
result in undue harassment and miscarriage of justice. The
misuse of criminal justice machinery is a matter of profound
concern.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026
22. In view of the legal principles and factual
analysis recorded hereinabove and considering the nature of
allegation against the petitioners, this Court finds that the order
dated 23.04.2018 passed by the learned Magistrate, so far as the
petitioners are concerned, has been passed in a mechanical
manner without application of judicial mind and permitting the
criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioners would
amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
23. Accordingly, the impugned order of cognizance
dated 23.04.2018 passed in Shastrinagar P.S. Case No.283 of
2016 by the learned Sub-Judge IV-cum-A.C.J.M., Patna qua the
petitioners is hereby quashed and set-aside..
24. The present application is, accordingly,
allowed.
25. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated
to the learned Trial Court forthwith.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 03.02.2026
Uploading Date 10.02.2026
Transmission Date 10.02.2026
