Premlata Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26777 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-502 Year-2023 Thana- TEKARI District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.
Premlata Devi W/o- Late Bharat Prasad Gupta Resident of Sahara City Flat No 860 Mango PS- Mango, Dist- Jamshedpur, A/P- Sanjana Interlaken, Block-2, Flat No-102, Dulapalli Ps- Dulapalli Haidrabad, Telangana 2.
Krishangi Raj @ S.Krishangi Raj D/o- Late Bharat Prasad Gupta Resident of Sahara City Flat No 860 Mango PS- Mango, Dist- Jamshedpur, A/PSanjana Interlaken, Block-2, Flat No-102, Dulapalli Ps- Dulapalli Haidrabad, Telangana 3.
Kamlesh Kumar S/o- Krishnadeo Poddar Resident of Sahara City Flat No 860 Mango PS- Mango, Dist- Jamshedpur, A/P- Sanjana Interlaken, Block2, Flat No-102, Dulapalli Ps- Dulapalli Haidrabad, Telangana ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Rupa Rachna W/o- Harshraj, D/o- Rajan Moh- Rikabganj Ps- Tekari DistGaya ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
Ms. Varsha Verma, Advocate.
For the State :
Mr.Md. Matloob Rab, APP.
For O.P. No.2 :
Mr. Arvnendra Kumar Thakur, Advocate.
Mr. Abhay Kumar Thakur, Advocate.
Ms. Sukriti Kumari, Advocate.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 04-11-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
2. The present application has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing of the order dated 24.01.2025 passed in Tekari P.S. Case No. 502 of 2023 by the learned ACJM-VI, Gaya whereby cognizance has been taken
2/5 under Sections 498A, 341, 323, 342, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act.
3. The allegation is of subjecting the complainant - opposite party no.2 to various sorts of torture due to nonfulfillment of the demand of the dowry.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the learned District Court has not considered that the allegation is not against the society. He further submitted that the material available on record don't disclose any criminal element and without considering this aspect, the order taking cognizance against the petitioners cannot sustain in the eye of law. He further submitted that O.P. No.2 was married with Harsh Raj, who is the son of petitioner no.1. Petitioner no. 1 is mother-in-law, petitioner no.2 married Nanad and petitioner no.3 is Nandoshi of the informant. Learned counsel further submitted that marriage is a sacred ceremony but for little matrimonial skirmish between husband and wife, the petitioners are facing criminal prosecution for the reason they are in-laws. The learned District Court has not considered this aspect, which calls for interference of this Court.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 submitted that the opposite party no.2 is
3/5 being harassed by the petitioners and, as such, the present quashing application is fit to be dismissed.
6. Heard the parties.
7. 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. The Apex Court has demarcated the manner in which the complaints are entertained by the learned District Court.
8. The law in respect of matrimonial dispute between husband and wife is well settled, at the same time, the Apex Court recently in the case of Navneesh Aggarwal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 963 has held that the family members of husband should not be roped unnecessarily and face vexatious criminal trial.
9. 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 and 31 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
4/5 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 casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.
10. From perusal of the complaint, it is evident that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner no. 1, petitioner no.2 and petitioner no.3, who are mother-in-law, married Nanad and Nandoshi of the informant respectively and allegation against them is general and omnibus.
11. I find that no case under Sections 498A, 341, 323,
5/5 342, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Ac is made out against the petitioners. Accordingly, the entire proceedings and order taking cognizance dated 24.01.2025 passed by the learned ACJM-VI, Gaya is hereby set aside and quashed with respect to these petitioners.
12. Accordingly, the present quashing application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J) mantreshwar/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 05.11.2025 Transmission Date 05.11.2025