[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Rakesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 19 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49071 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2655 Year-2023 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT
District- East Champaran
======================================================
Rakesh Kumar S/O Late Rajbanshi Chaudhary @ Rajbanshi Choudhary
Resident of Village/Mohalla- Anwapur @ Anwarpur Purvi, P.S. - Town
Hajipur, District- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Namita Kumari W/O Rakesh Kumar, D/O Kamleshwar Paswan @
Kamleshwar Ram R/O Village/Mohalla- Anwarpur @ Anwarpur Purvi, P.S-
Town Hajipur, Distt.- Vaishali, At present R/O Village- Dumri Govindganj,
P.S- Patahi, Distt.- East Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bipin Bihari Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Pushpa Sinha.1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-02-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has filed the present case for
following relief(s):
'For quashing and setting aside the
order-dated 16.04.2024 passed by Learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Motihari (East
Champaran) in connection with Enq. No.
233/2023 arising out of Complaint Case No. 2655
of 2023 dated 20.09.2023 whereby and where
under cognizance has been taken for the offences
under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49071 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
2/9
the petitioner.'
3. That, the prosecution case in brief is that the
marriage of the complainant, Namita Kumari, was solemnized
with petitioner Rakesh Kumar on 28.04.2021 as per Hindu rites
and customs. It is alleged that after a few days of marriage the
petitioner and his family members started subjecting her to
cruelty and demanding dowry of Rs. 10 lakh, and she was
threatened with ill-treatment on non-fulfilment of such demand.
The complainant has further alleged that she was misbehaved
with, deprived of basic facilities and on 15.06.2023 was
assaulted and driven out of the matrimonial home. It is also
alleged that despite Panchayati, the accused persons refused to
keep her in the matrimonial house or restore her matrimonial
rights. On the basis of the complaint, Complaint Case No. 2655
of 2023 dated 20.09.2023 was instituted and cognizance has
been taken for the offences under section 498A IPC and
sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Motihari (East Champaran).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the defence of the petitioner is complete denial of the
allegations made in the complaint petition in any manner
whatsoever. It has been submitted that the petitioner has falsely
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49071 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
3/9
been implicated in the present case at the instance of his
enemies and the entire prosecution story is palpably false and
concocted based on malicious, malafide and baseless grounds.
It has further been submitted that from bare perusal of the
complaint petition itself, no specific allegation is made against
the petitioner, rather the allegations are general and omnibus in
nature. He further submits that the petitioner had earlier
instituted matrimonial Divorce Case No. 319 of 2023 against
the complainant on 18.07.2023 before the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Vaishali at Hajipur and only thereafter,
after about two months, the present complaint came to be filed
by O.P. No.2 on 20.09.2023. It has next been submitted that the
said Divorce Case was ultimately heard and allowed vide order
dated 27.11.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the conduct of O.P. No.2 is evident from the fact
that she had forcibly entered the house of the petitioner, for
which an application dated 11.11.2023 was submitted before
the S.H.O., Town Police Station, Hajipur. It has been submitted
that the petitioner was left with no option but to leave his own
house and is presently residing as a tenant, whereas the
complainant continues to occupy the petitioner's house despite
the decree of divorce passed by the learned Principal Judge,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49071 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
4/9
Family Court, Vaishali at Hajipur. It has also been submitted
that a false and concocted story has been cooked up and the
allegation of assault and abuse upon the informant by the
petitioner is absurd and concocted and without going through
the material evidences available on record, the learned Judicial
Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence under section
498A in a mechanical manner. It has thus been submitted that
no case is made out against the petitioner and therefore the
order of cognizance is fit to be set aside. Learned counsel for
the petitioner lastly submits that he had observed that O.P.
No.2 at the time of marriage was carrying a pregnancy of three
months.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of O.P. No.2 submits that a counter affidavit has been filed
wherein it has been categorically stated that prior to filing of
the divorce case, O.P. No.2 had lodged a complaint before the
Mahila Police Station, Vaishali, alleging physical assault,
torture and demand of dowry by her husband, namely Rakesh
Kumar, on 06.06.2023, wherein the petitioner was noticed and
directed to appear before the Mahila Police Station on
22.06.2023
and upon his undertaking that he would keep his
wife/O.P. No.2 with full dignity and respect, the matter was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49071 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
pacified and settled and both started living together. It has
further been submitted that the petitioner mischievously filed
Divorce Case No. 319 of 2023 on 18.07.2023 on false grounds,
even at a time when he was residing with O.P. No.2 in the
matrimonial house and that O.P. No.2 had no knowledge of the
filing of the said divorce case as the petitioner allegedly
managed the service of notice upon her, as a result of which she
could not appear and the divorce decree was granted ex parte.
Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 further submits that the demand
of dowry and torture continued and ultimately she was ousted
on 16.09.2023, whereafter she went to her maike and despite
repeated requests the petitioner did not take steps to pacify the
dispute, leaving O.P. No.2 with no option but to institute the
present complaint on 20.09.2023. It has been submitted that so
far as the divorce case is concerned, Miscellaneous Appeal No.
347 of 2025 has already been filed and the same is pending
before the Hon'ble High Court at Patna challenging the
judgment and decree dated 27.11.2024 and 09.12.2024
respectively. It has further been pointed out that the said
miscellaneous appeal had earlier been dismissed for default,
however, the same has subsequently been restored to its
original file. It has lastly been submitted that O.P. No.2 has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49071 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
been left alone without any independent source of income and
is constrained to look after her ailing father who has suffered a
paralytic attack and that the mother of O.P. No.2 is also
seriously ill, suffering from severe renal issues and thus it has
been submitted that the present application is misconceived,
there is no illegality in the impugned order and the same is fit
to be dismissed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
upon perusal of their respective pleadings, this court finds that
there are specific allegations against the petitioner relating to
assault and demand of dowry. It further transpires that an ex
parte decree has been passed in favour of the petitioner to
which the O.P. No.2 has submitted that it was under a design
and in a pre-planned manner, the petitioner filed the said case
despite the fact that the O.P. No.2 was living with him and the
service of notice was managed and the O.P. No. 2 was never
informed about the pendency of the said case. Though, the
petitioner has controverted the facts, through his rejoinder
stating that the O.P. No.2 had left the house on 01.06.2021 and
thereafter he had lodged a complaint on 18.06.2021 in Mahila
Police Station and even though she was not living at Hajipur,
she played a fraud by giving an address of Hajipur. However,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49071 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
prima facie, the pleading by way of rejoinder of the petitioner
seems to be wrong, as from the perusal of the notice contained
in Annexure R-1, with the counter affidavit it is clear that the
notice was issued by the Mahila Police Station on 18.06.2023,
asking the parties to be present on 22.06.2023, and therefore,
the date given by the petitioner that the O.P. No.2 had lodged a
complaint on 18.06.2021 is misconceived.
7. This Court has taken note of this fact that had
the petitioner been serious for divorce or separation, he could
have informed the O.P. No.2 or her family members, but he
refrained from doing so and got the ex parte decree in his favor.
8. I have observed that on perusal of the ex parte
judgment passed in the matrimonial case, the court in
paragraph number 3 has observed that the service of notice
were confirmed after the opposite party refused to accept the
notice.
9. From perusal of the complaint, it is evident that
the complainant has alleged, that she was thrown out of the
house after her belongings were kept by the petitioner on
16.09.2023 and thereafter the present complaint was lodged on
20.09.2023. Thus, it can be inferred that during the filing of the
matrimonial case, the O.P. No. 2 was very much present in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49071 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
house of the petitioner and the service of notice with the report
of refusal by the O.P. No.2 does not seem feasible, especially
for the fact that the parties were not keeping good relationship.
10. The conduct of the petitioner speaks volume
about the way he has been pursuing towards the matrimonial
discord and to the understanding of this court, he had used all
means to get an ex parte order of divorce and thereafter, the
O.P. No.2 was forced into leaving the house of the petitioner.
The petitioner probably is not aware of the fact that even if he
got an ex parte divorce, the allegations levelled for offences
under section 498A and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
would not vanish into thin air merely because he has got a
decree of divorce with the complainant. This Court may also
observe that had the petitioner been so serious about pursuing
the application for divorce, he ought to have taken efforts to
communicate the same to either the O.P. No.2 or the family of
the O.P. No.2, but taking advantage of the fact that the O.P.
No.2 was at the relevant time present at his house, the service
report with regard to the refusal by the O.P. No.2 was brought
forward in the said matrimonial case.
11. In view of the aforesaid observations made,
this court finds that there is prima facie allegation of demand of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49071 of 2025 dt.19-02-2026
dowry and torture both mental and physical and also looking at
the subsequent events, I am not inclined to interfere with the
order taking cognizance.
12. The application is dismissed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 21.02.2026.
Transmission Date 21.02.2026.
