Patna High Court
Ravi Kumar BhagatversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 323 and 498A IPC is quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, Ravi Kumar Bhagat, sought to quash a criminal case (C.R. No.1053 of 2015) filed against him under Sections 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code based on a complaint by Opposite Party No.2. The petitioner argued that the same opposite party had earlier been served notice in a matrimonial suit (Matrimonial Case No.441 of 2013) where she failed to appear, leading the Family Court to declare the marriage null and void ex‑parte on 25‑July‑2015. He contended that the complaint was false, filed two months before the divorce order, and that the opposite party showed no intention to continue the marriage. The High Court noted that the opposite party had indeed not appeared in either proceeding and that the criminal prosecution was launched only after the divorce notice was served. Consequently, the court allowed the petitioner's application and quashed the magistrate’s order taking cognizance of the offences.
Issues considered
- Whether the criminal complaint under Sections 323 and 498A IPC, filed by Opposite Party No.2, is a false complaint warranting quashment.
- Whether the prior ex‑parte declaration of nullity of marriage affects the validity of the criminal proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Hindu Marriage Act — s. 12(1)(b)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A
Subjects
- criminal law
- false complaint
- quash
- IPC 323
- IPC 498A
- Hindu Marriage Act
- ex parte divorce
- family law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31339 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1053 Year-2015 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Samastipur
======================================================
Ravi Kumar Bhagat
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
State Of Bihar and Anr.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
8 07-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State. Service of notice upon the
opposite party no. 02 is treated to be valid and she has chosen
not to appear.
2. This application has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner for quashing the order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the
lerned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Rosera,
Samastipur in C.R. No. 1053 of 2015 by which the learned
Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section 323 and 498(A)
of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner straight
away draws the attention of this Court to page-17 of the
quashing application and submits that the petitioner herein had
filed Matrimonial Case No. 441 of 2013 in the court of learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31339 of 2018(8) dt.07-01-2026
2/3
Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur, in which the OP No.
2 was impleaded as respondent under Section 12(1)(b) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, to declare the marriage solemnized
between the petitioner and the OP No. 2 as null and void on
grounds mentioned in the petition. It is next submitted that
notices were issued upon the OP No. 2 by the learned Family
Court in Matrimonial Case No. 441 of 2013, but the OP No. 2
did not appear, as such, the case was decided ex parte and the
marriage was declared null and void by a judgment dated 25-7-
2015.
4. The learned counsel next submits that the OP
No. 2 was aware of the pendency of the matrimonial case, as
such, she instituted the present false complaint case two months
prior to the passing of the order in the aforesaid matrimonial
case. It is further submitted that to the knowledge of the
petitioner till date, the OP No. 2 has not challenged the order
passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur,
in Matrimonial Case No. 441 of 2013.
5. From the aforesaid submissions, it appears that
the respondent no. 02 is not interested in continuing with the
marriage and therefore she has chosen not to appear in the
divorce proceeding and therefore ex-parte divorce was granted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31339 of 2018(8) dt.07-01-2026
3/3
to the petitioner. Even in the present case, the opposite party no.
02 has chosen not to appear and the present prosecution has
been launched against the petitioner only after the notice in the
divorce proceedings was served upon the opposite party no. 02.
6. In view of the above, this application is allowed.
7. Accordingly, the order dated 19.05.2017 passed
by the lerned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Rosera,
Samastipur in C.R. No. 1053 of 2015 is hereby quashed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Vikas/-
U
Checking your session…