Saroj Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65181 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-147 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

SAROJ DEVI Wife of Nirbhay Shankar Prasad Village- Sikandra PoFatehpur Ps- Belchi Dist- Patna 2.

Mridula Kumari Daughter of Nirbhay Shankar Prasad Village- Sikandra PoFatehpur Ps- Belchi Dist- Patna 3.

Manmohan Manikant Son of Mathura Prasad Village- Sikandra Po- Fatehpur Ps- Belchi Dist- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Priyanka Kumari D/o- Mahesh Prasad Singh J.P Awashiya Prabhat Colony, Chas Bokaro Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjeev Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Raj Kishor Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 08-07-2025

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Present petition is being filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short Cr.P.C.) for quashing the cognizance order dated 22.12.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Mahila P.S. Case No. 147 of 2020 by which the Court has taken cognizance under Sections 498A, 504 and 506/34 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the

2/7 petitioners.

3. That the prosecution story in brief is that the marriage of O.P. No. 2 solemnized with one Bibhuti Bhushan in 2016 and since then all the accused persons including petitioners started demanding dowry and denied share in her ancestral land and also harassed her after she give birth to a girl child. Finally she was ousted from her matrimonial home.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that upon perusal of FIR, it appears that allegation qua demand of dowry and also of mental and physical assault appears very much general and omnibus against petitioners, who are mother-in-law, married sister-inlaw, and brother-in-law (nandosi) of the complainant. It is submitted that they have least concern with daily and domestic affairs of O.P. No. 2 and her husband namely, Bibhuti Bhushan Kumar. It is pointed out that the implication of petitioners with present case appears only for the reason that they are relatives of the husband of O.P. No. 2 and for same oblique and ulterior motive, the present malicious prosecution was lodged against them.

3/7

5. It is submitted that in view of aforesaid factual aspect present proceeding before learned trial court considering legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh as reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083, is fit to be quashed/ set aside against petitioners.

6. Learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 submitted that petitioners being relative actively participated in the occurrence, however, he could not disputed the factual and legal submissions as advanced above by learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. It would be further apposite to reproduce paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 14 ,15, 16 & 17 of Abhishek Case (supra), which read as:-

12. The contours of the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are well defined. In V. Ravi Kumar v. State represented by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu [(2019) 14 SCC 568], this Court affirmed that where an accused seeks quashing of the FIR, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in the complaint. In Neeharika Infrastructure (P). Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021, decided on 13.04.2021], a 3-Judge Bench of this Court elaborately considered the scope and extent of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, such standard not being confused with the norm formulated

4/7 in the context of the death penalty. It was further observed that while examining the FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made therein, but if the Court thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, and more particularly, the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC

866) and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp

(1) SCC 335], the Court would have jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.

13. Instances of a husband's family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on this score. We may now take note of some decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation where the High Court had refused to quash a FIR registered for various offences, including Section 498A IPC.

Noting that the foremost issue that required determination was whether allegations made against the in-laws were general omnibus allegations which would be liable to be quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions wherein concern was expressed over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed that false implications by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. On the facts of that case, it was found that no specific allegations were made against the in-laws by the wife and it was held that allowing their prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws would result in an abuse of the process of law.

It was also noted that a criminal trial, leading to an eventual acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the accused and such an exercise ought to be discouraged.

14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 SCC 667], this Court noted that the tendency to implicate the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon in complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It was observed that 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, as allegations of harassment by husband's close relations, who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided, would add an entirely different complexion and such allegations would have to be scrutinised with great care

5/7 and circumspection.

15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC 184], this Court observed that the mere mention of statutory provisions and the language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is not the 'be all and end all' of the matter, as what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in the commission of that offence. These observations were made in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving Section 498A IPC.

16. Of more recent origin is the decision of this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023, decided on 08.08.2023) on the legal principles applicable apropos Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therein, it was observed that when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 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.

17. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court had set out, by way of illustration, the broad categories of cases in which the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised. Para 102 of the decision reads as follows:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such

6/7 power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first informant report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent persons can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

8. In view of aforesaid factual and legal submission and by taking note of the fact as allegation qua demand of dowry along with physical and mental torture appears very much general and omnibus against petitioners, who are inlaws and, moreover, the implication appears prima-facie only

7/7 being relatives of husband of O.P. No. 2, accordingly, by taking a guiding note of Abhishek case (supra), the impugned order of cognizance dated 22.12.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Mahila P.S. Case No. 147 of 2020 qua above-named three petitioners is hereby quashed/set aside, with all its consequential proceedings.

9. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.

10. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial court forthwith.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) Sudha/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 14.07.2025 Transmission Date 14.07.2025