Patna High Court
Rahul Verma vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 27 June, 2024
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25895 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3145 Year-2015 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Rahul Verma son of Sri Pavanendra Narayan Verma, resident of A- 56, South
City, P.S.- Mohanlalganj, Raibareli Road, Town and District- Lucknow, State-
Uttar Pradesh.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar
2. Sanjeev Ranjan Sinha son of Late Ashwini Kumar Sinha, resident of Flat
No. 104, Aparajita Enclave, Jyotipuram Colony, Ambedkar Path, Khajpura,
P.S.- Rajeev Nagar, Town and District- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Prakash
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar 3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-06-2024
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This is an application for quashing the
order dated 09.11.2016 passed in compliant case no
3145(c) of 2015 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Patna where cognizance for the offence
punishable under section 498(A) of Indian penal code and
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, was taken against
petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25895 of 2017 dt.27-06-2024
2/14
3. The crux of allegation is that the marriage of
the complainant's daughter Priyam Akancha with Rahul
Verma (petitioner) was solemnized on 18.01.2015. Prior to
the marriage ceremony at Patna an engagement ceremony
was also performed in Lucknow on 16.08.2014, where
only on 15 minutes late arrival of the complainant and
family, the accused persons demoralized them in front of
their guests during marriage ceremony. The Complainant
booked 22 rooms at Hotel Patliputra Ashok, for wedding
ceremony on instance of the accused party, without any
need, however throughout the marriage, the accused
persons created issues with regard to arrangements.
Complainant's daughter i.e., 19.01.2015 left for Lucknow
with in laws after marriage, where on 20.01.2015, she got
shocked after knowing that her in-laws are making
allegation against her parents of not giving sufficient gifts
to the petitioner. On reception day i.e., 21.01.2015, the
co-accused asked the complainant about their heavy
expenses spend on marriage and next day straightway
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25895 of 2017 dt.27-06-2024
3/14
demanded Rs. 20 lakhs dowry from the complainant to
meet such expenses; however the complainant explained
his difficulty for fulfilling the same. The daughter of
complainant along with the petitioner on 26.01.2015 left
for Mumbai by flight, where she was tortured physically as
well as mentally by petitioner. After some time petitioner's
father also arrived at Mumbai and in his presence, the
petitioner used to beat the complainant's daughter, which
is also encouraged by petitioner father, however it is
tolerated by complainant's daughter. On 4th March 2015,
the complainant with his wife visited Mumbai to celebrate
holi with her daughter, where petitioner misbehaved with
them for not celebrating marriage according to his parents'
wishes. However, it is alleged that the complainant's
daughter gone into depression. That on 20th or 21st March
while packing is done by daughter of complainant for
shifting in new flat, on some delay, the complainant's
daughter was abused and on protest she was beaten
ruthlessly by the petitioner before the labors. Due to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25895 of 2017 dt.27-06-2024
4/14
merciless beating the complainant's daughter suffered with
severe blood clout in her whole body and she was not able
to arrange the goods in newly shifted apartment, however
she was compelled to do due to petitioner's strict direction,
resultant in shivering of body. However after due to
continuous beating, the complainant's daughter on 27th
March, somehow with help of friends managed to escape
and fled to Patna by boarding plane and thereafter send
SMS to the petitioner about it and arrived Patna at 11 PM
in night of 27.03.2015, and on 28.03.2015 morning, the
complainant with her daughter went to local Police station
at Patna, but the Police did not registered FIR .The
complainant daughter explained entire circumstances to
complainant regarding leaving petitioner's home and also
informed that her marriage is not consummated as the
petitioner had a circumcision surgery, and due to which he
had lost his erectile dysfunction, which he suppressed,
therefore he is not fit to maintain conjugal relationship and
the marriage is done by him for gaining false prestige in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25895 of 2017 dt.27-06-2024
5/14
society. Further, it is alleged that the complainant also
requested for divorce through mutual consent, and also
send a draft petition for mutual divorce through courier
and e-mail, which was not accepted by petitioner and when
contacted he refused for the same. Hence, the present
complaint was filed by the complainant.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner is the husband of O.P. No. 2
and now the matter amicably settled between the parties.
It is further submitted that upon settlement, the parties
dissolved their marriage by way of mutual divorce.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the
said divorce was granted on mutual prayer by the parties,
under provisions of 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
which was granted through Matrimonial Case No. 72 of
2016, dated 03.10.2018 by the learned Principal Judge,
Patna.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25895 of 2017 dt.27-06-2024
6/14
6. It is submitted that the petitioner paid Rs.
2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh), as full and final settlement
to O.P. No. 2.
7. It is pointed out that it was settled further to
withdraw the present pending criminal case also but after
getting dissolved their marriage by way of divorce and also
after receiving the permanent alimony, the O.P. No. 2/wife
failed to withdraw the present criminal proceedings
pending before the court of learned S.D.J.M. Patna.
8. In view of the above settlement, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
continuing with the process before the learned trial court,
would only amount to abuse of process of law.
9. In support of aforesaid submission learned
counsel relied upon the report of Hon'ble Supreme Court
as reported in the matter of Abhishek vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh as reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1083.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25895 of 2017 dt.27-06-2024
7/14
10. Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party
No. 2, despite of repeated calls failed to join the present
proceeding, while the matter was taken on board.
11. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer
for quashing petition.
12. It would be appropriate to reproduce the
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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25895 of 2017 dt.27-06-2024 8/14 exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, such standard not being confused with the norm formulated 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25895 of 2017 dt.27-06-2024 9/14 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25895 of 2017 dt.27-06-2024 10/14 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 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25895 of 2017 dt.27-06-2024 11/14 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25895 of 2017 dt.27-06-2024 12/14 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 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25895 of 2017 dt.27-06-2024 13/14 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."
13. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal submission as it appears that the marriage between the parties now appears dissolved by way of divorce which was obtained mutually, U/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It also appears that the issue of maintenance now also settled between the parties for which Rs. 2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakh) was paid to O.P. No. 2, as permanent alimony.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25895 of 2017 dt.27-06-2024 14/14
14. In view of the aforesaid settlement, the continuing of present criminal case before Ld. trial court appears only amounting to abuse of the process of court of law, which appears further convincing from the guiding note of Abhishek Case (supra), accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 09.11.2016 with all its consequential proceedings, qua, petitioner, arising thereof as passed in connection with Complaint Case No. 3145(c) of 2016, pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, is hereby quashed and set aside.
15. Hence, this application stands allowed.
16. TCR (Trial Court Records), if any, be returned to learned trial court alongwith the copy of this judgment, forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) Sudha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 29.06.2024 Transmission Date 29.06.2024