Patna High Court
Lalan Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 3 November, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18999 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-514 Year-2018 Thana- GOPALGANJ COMPLAINT CASE
District- Gopalganj
======================================================
1. Lalan Singh S/o Late Rajroshan Singh R/o vill - Ekderwa, P.S.- Uchkagaon,
Distt.- Gopalganj
2. Shiv Mangal Singh S/o Late Rajroshan Singh R/o vill - Ekderwa, P.S.-
Uchkagaon, Distt.- Gopalganj
3. Prince Kumar Singh S/o Lalan Singh R/o vill - Ekderwa, P.S.- Uchkagaon,
Distt.- Gopalganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mala Devi W/o Bishundeo Singh, D/o Baidhnath Singh R/o vill - Jamshad,
P.O.- Jamshad, P.S.- Uchkagaon, Distt.- Gopalganj
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Naresh Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Vipin Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-11-2025
Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
petitioners; learned APP for the State and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2.
2. The petitioners have preferred application under
Section 528 of BNSS for quashing the order taking cognizance
dated 09.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate V, Gopalganj in Complaint Case No.514/2018, Tr.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18999 of 2025 dt.03-11-2025
2/8
No.1018 of 2025, by which cognizance of the offences has been
taken under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the
petitioners.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that Mala Devi,
who is O.P. No.2 claims that she is the legally wedded wife of
one Bishundeo Singh, with whom she was married on
09.06.2008according to Hindu customs. She lived happily with her husband for about 15-20 days, thereafter, the accused persons/in-laws allegedly demanded a Bullet motorcycle as dowry from the complainant, despite the complainant's parents had already given articles worth Rs.4,50,000, Rs.1,00,000 in cash, and a Hero Honda motorcycle. When the demand was not fulfilled, she was allegedly harassed, assaulted, and deprived of food and when her husband had gone abroad, accused persons named above continued to torture her and even attempted to outrage her modesty. She has given birth to two children. In 2018, she was again assaulted for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and allegedly she was driven out of her matrimonial home and also kept her valuable articles.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that the petitioner nos.1 and 2 are own brothers of the husband of the O.P. No.2 and the petitioner no.3, is the son of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18999 of 2025 dt.03-11-2025 3/8 the petitioner no.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the husband of the O.P. No.2 is not residing with her and taking advantage of the situation, in absence of her husband the O.P. No.2 developed illicit relationship with one Kalikeshwar Rawat, and has implicated all the petitioners along with other family members on false accusation of subjecting her to various types of tortures for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and also alleged that they kicked her out of her matrimonial house. Learned counsel submitted that the Complaint Case No.514 of 2018 was filed by the O.P. No.2 on 26.03.2018. Subsequent to the same the husband of the O.P. No.2, after he had returned from foreign country, lodged an FIR against Kalikeshwar Rawat in connection with Hathua P.S. Case No.06 of 2023 on 06.01.2023, who is having illicit relationship with the O.P. No.2.
5. The learned counsel relied on the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Joseph Shine vs. Union of India reported in (2019) 3 SCC 39 wherein the the Apex Court has held that Section 497 IPC is violative of Articles 14, 15(1) and 21 of the Constitution being manifestly arbitrary, gender discriminatory, encroachment into women's identity, dignity, liberty, privacy, sexual autonomy, freedom to make independent choice in matters of sexuality, hence struck down as Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18999 of 2025 dt.03-11-2025 4/8 unconstitutional.
6. He further submitted that FIR don't disclose any offence and in the light of the conditions contained in para-102 of the Apex Court judgment in case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, no case is made out against the petitioners. The Apex Court in para-102 has held as under:
"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 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 information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cogizable 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18999 of 2025 dt.03-11-2025 5/8 (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person 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."
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned APP jointly submitted that opportunity may be given to the parties to reconcile their dispute amicably.
8. Heard the parties.
9. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, this Court restrains from passing any order on merits, however, the parties, who are own brothers (i.e. the petitioner nos.1 and 2) and nephew (the petitioner no.3) of the husband of the O.P. No.2, if so desire, they may settle their dispute outside the Court amicably or they may avail appropriate remedy before the learned District Court concerned. In such circumstances, the learned District Court may consider the case of parties on the basis of law laid down by the Apex Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18999 of 2025 dt.03-11-2025 6/8 Court in the case of Mange Ram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.10817 of 2024), where in paragraph nos. 25 and 31 the Apex Court 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. 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18999 of 2025 dt.03-11-2025 7/8 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. Learned District Court is directed to take necessary steps to issue notices to the respective parties and upon their appearance, refer the matter before the learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center.
11. 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 in connection with the aforesaid case.
12. The learned District Court concerned must also give consideration to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Joseph Shine (Supra) and Mange Ram (Supra) and see that the respective parties can resolve their dispute on their own by avoiding further litigation.
13. In case, the parties resolve their dispute amicably, then the proceeding is required to be dropped in light of the law Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18999 of 2025 dt.03-11-2025 8/8 laid down by the Apex Court as referred hereinabove.
14. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J) Ashishsingh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 17.11.2025 Transmission Date 17.11.2025