Pankaj Kumar Das v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55813 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1818 Year-2023 Thana- KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE District- Katihar ====================================================== 1.
Pankaj Kumar Das S/O Pradeep Kumar Das R/O Flat no.408B, sundar apartment, Bhoothnath Road, Kankarbagh, P.S.-Agamkuan, Distt-Patna 2.
Pradeep Kumar Das S/O Late Bishwajeet Das R/O Flat no.408B,sundar apartment,Bhoothnath Road, Kankarbagh,P.S.-Agamkuan,Distt-Patna 3.
Subhash Kumar Das S/O Pradeep Kumar Das R/O Flat no.408B, sundar apartment, Bhoothnath Road, Kankarbagh,P.S.-Agamkuan,Distt-Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Ramesh Chandra Das S/o Late Ravindra Das R/O Mohalla-Vijay Nagar Colony no.2,P.S.-Katihar,Distt-Katihar 3.
Runu Kumari, wife of Pankaj Kumar Das, D/o Late Prem Ranjan Das, Resident of Lalganj, P.S. - Maranga, Purnia - 854303 ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Prakash Chandra Gupta, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 10-11-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. As prayed for, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is permitted to implead Runu Kumari, wife of petitioner no.1 and grand daughter of the opposite party no.2 as opposite party no.3, in course of the day.
3. The petitioners have preferred the application
2/8 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the learned Judaical Magistrate 1st Class, Katihar in Complaint Case No. 1818 of 2023 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence against the petitioners under Sections 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The allegation is of subjecting the opposite party no.3 to various sorts of torture due to non-fulfillment of the demand of the dowry and also of ousting her from her matrimonial house. It has also been alleged that the accused persons also pressed the neck of the complainant with an intention to kill him and snatched Rs. 20,000/- cash and ornaments worth Rs.50,000/-. They also threatened the complainant - O.P. No.2 to control his Natani - O.P. No.3 and wife of petitioner no.1, otherwise they would kill her.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioners is false and concocted. He further submitted that after institution of the present case, the wife of petitioner no.1 also filed a complaint case no. 2157 of 2023 against the petitioners under Sections 323, 379, 376, 511 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. He
3/8 further submitted that petitioner no. 1 is the husband, petitioner no.2 is the father-in-law and petitioner no.3 is the Dewar of the opposite party no.3. Learned counsel further submitted that marriage is a sacred ceremony but little matrimonial skirmish suddenly erupts into hatred and the parties can be allowed to ponder to reconcile their dispute outside the court. He submitted that the matter be referred for mediation.
6. Learned APP submitted that opportunity shall be given to the parties to reconcile their dispute amicably.
7. Heard the parties.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. From perusal of the complaint, it is evident that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3, who are father-in-law and Dewar of the opposite party no.3
4/8 respectively. 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 Sections 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner nos.2 and 3. Accordingly, the entire proceeding and order taking cognizance dated 16.02.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 1818 of 2023 is hereby set aside and quashed to the extent it relates to petitioner nos. 2 and 3.
11. So far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, who is husband of the opposite party no.3 and there is matrimonial dispute between them, this Court finds that 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 by 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 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 matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which
5/8 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 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 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.
6/8 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.
13. The petitioner no. 1, who is the husband of the opposite party no. 3, desires that he wants to settle the dispute amicably. The learned District Court shall also strive till last to settle the dispute outside the Court.
14. Petitioner no. 1 who is the husband of opposite party no. 3 has agreed to appear before the learned District Court on 27.11.2025 at 10:30 AM.
15. Learned District Court is directed to take necessary steps to refer the matter before the learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center after issuing notice to the
7/8 opposite party nos.2 and 3.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. In case of failure on the part of the petitioners no. 1 to appear on 27.11.2025 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.
19. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the petitioners 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 nos.2 and 3 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
8/8 the proceeding against him is required to be dropped in accordance with law.
20. Accordingly, the present quashing application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J) mantreshwar/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 18.11.2025 Transmission Date 18.11.2025