Nisha Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42897 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-332 Year-2023 Thana- KATRA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.

Nisha Devi Son of Shashi Bhusan Ray @ Shashi Bhusan Kumar Ray, Resident of - Dumari, Pandauli Katra, P.O.- Pind Dauli (Dumari), P.S.- Jajuar, District- Muzaffarpur 2.

Shashi Bhusan Ray @ Shashi Bhushan Kumar Ray, son of Late Ramayash Ray, Resident of Dumri, Pandauli Katra, P.O.- Pind Dauli (Dumari), P.S.- Jajuar, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Aparna Kumari Daughter of Ashok Ray @ @ Ashok Kumar Ray @ Khilari, wife of Prabhat Kumar Ray, having present address Maternal Home- As Bagna, Po- Pind Dauli (Dumari), Ps- Aurai, Dist- Muzaffarpur Pincode843321 permanent address (in-laws house) as resident of Dumri, P.O. Pandauli (DumarI) P.S.- Jajuar, District- Muzaffarpur, Bihar, Pin - 843321 ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Saurabh Bishwambhar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP For OP No.2 :

Mr. Nachiketa Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-11-2025 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 petitioners have preferred the application

2/9 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 BNSS for quashing of the order dated 27.03.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No.86/2025 arising out of Katra P.S. Case No.332/2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Muzaffarpur, by which he was pleased to reject the prayer of the petitioner, challenging the order taking cognizance by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur dated 16.03.2024 under Sections 341, 342, 323, 498-A, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of D.P. Act.

3. The prosecution story, in short is that marriage of the informant was solemnized with son of the petitioners on 06.07.2022 but soon after their marriage, her husband and inlaws started demanding Rs. Five lakhs in the form of dowry and for non-fulfillment of the demand, they subjected her to cruelty both mental and physical. On 09.11.2022, the informant was taken by her in-laws to the kitchen and was tried to be burn alive but she managed to escape. Thereafter, the negotiations were held between the parties and informant was taken to Mumbai by her husband, where again dispute occurred between them. On 09.12.2023, she was again brutally beaten by her husband and in-laws for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Aggrieved by the said act, the informant has filed the FIR on

3/9 14.12.2023 against them within two years of strained marriage.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the learned District Court before taking cognizance of the offence failed to consider that the offence as alleged 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 becomes unsustainable in the eye of law. He further submitted that petitioner no.1 is mother-in-law and petitioner no.2 is father-inlaw of the opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel further submitted that marriage is a sacred ceremony but little matrimonial skirmish suddenly erupts into hatred but the same can be resolved, if the parties are given opportunity to ponder to reconcile their dispute outside the court.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2 and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that a chance be given to the parties for amicable settlement outside the court.

6. The counsel of the petitioners and O.P. No.2 on instruction submitted that the petitioner no.1 along with his son (husband of O.P. No.2) and O.P. No.2 have agreed to appear

4/9 before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M. on 17.11.2025.

7. Heard the parties.

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 and face vexatious criminal trial.

9. 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.

10. From perusal of the complaint, it is evident that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners no. 2, who is father-in-law of the O.P. No.2. 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 and allied Sections of Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act is made out against petitioner no.2. Accordingly, the entire proceedings and order taking cognizance dated 16.03.2024 and revisional order dated 27.3.2025 in connection with Katra P.S. Case No.332/2023 are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent it relates to

5/9 petitioners no.2.

11. So far as the petitioner no.1, who is mother-in-law of O.P. No.2, is concerned, a reference can be taken to law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Naushey Ali & Ors. 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.

12. 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, as has been held in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, reported in, (2003) 4 SCC 675, in paragraph nos. 12 and 13 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is as under:- " 12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine 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

6/9 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.

13. 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 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.

7/9 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."

14. The parties want to settle the dispute amicably. This Court finds it proper in the interest of the parties, as there is no objection to arrive at a mutual terms and conditions of settlement, that certain time is required.

8/9

15. The parties seek to settle their strained matrimonial relationship amicably, the learned District Court shall also strive till last to settle the dispute outside the Court

16. Petitioner no. 1 along with his son and opposite party no. 2 have agreed to appear before the learned District Court on 17.12.2025 at 10:30 AM.

17. Learned District Court is directed to take necessary steps to refer the matter before the learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner no. 1 to appear on 17.12.2025 before the learned District Court or any date fixed by the learned Mediator, the interim protection

9/9 granted to the petitioner no. 1 shall automatically lose its force.

21. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the petitioners no. 1 and she 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, continuing with the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of court and the interim protection granted to petitioner no. 1 shall continue and the proceeding against her is required to be dropped in accordance with law. 22 Accordingly, the order dated 16.03.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur and the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Muzaffarpur are modified to the above extent in respect of petitioner no.1.

23. With aforesaid observation and direction, the quashing application stands disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J) Sanjay/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 22.11.2025 Transmission Date 22.11.2025