AFREEN SAMADversusThe State of Bihar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85158 of 2023
        Arising out of PS. Case No.-925 Year-2022 Thana- SHASTRINAGAR District- Patna
     ======================================================
1.    Afreen Samad W/o Fahad Makhdumi R/o Flat No. 101 Nayeeralam Campus
      Samanpura, P.S- Shastrinagar, Distt.- Patna.
2.   Md. Yusuf Samad S/o Late Md. Aftab Ahmad Mallick R/o Flat No. 101
     Nayeeralam Campus Samanpura, P.S- Shastrinagar, Distt.- Patna.
3.   Md. Aftab Ahmad Mallick S/o Late Enamus Samad R/o Flat No. 101
     Nayeeralam Campus Samanpura, P.S- Shastrinagar, Distt.- Patna.
4.   Mosrrat Jahan W/o Md. Aftab Ahmad Mallick R/o Flat No. 101 Nayeeralam
     Campus Samanpura, P.S- Shastrinagar, Distt.- Patna.
5.   Md. Sayeed @ Md. Sayeed Manzar S/o Late Majhar Khan R/o Block No.-5,
     Sapna Apartment Bari Path, P.S- Pirbahor, Distt.- Patna.

                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                          Versus
     The State of Bihar

                                            ... ... Opposite Party/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s     : Mrs. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Sr. Advocate
     For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
                           ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 01-05-2026

                 Heard Mrs. Archana Sinha, learned senior counsel for

     the petitioners and Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, learned Additional

     Public Prosecutor for the State.

                 2. Petitioners seek quashing of the FIR of Shastri Nagar

     P.S. Case No. 925 of 2022 dated 25.12.2022 arising out of

     Complaint Case No. 14894 of 2022 instituted for the offences

     under Sections 341, 323, 342, 307, 504 and 506 IPC.
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85158 of 2023 dt.01-05-2026
                                2/6




          3. The case of the complainant was that when he went to

meet his wife and son he was assaulted by the accused persons.

Those accused persons are the petitioners.

          4. Mrs. Archana Sinha, learned senior counsel for the

petitioners submits that the Petitioner No. 1 is the wife of the

complainant, Petitioner No. 2 is the brother-in-law, Petitioner No.

3 is father-in-law, Petitioner No. 4 is mother-in-law of the

complainant and Petitioner No. 5 is Mediator of the marriage. She

further submits that the present case has been filed in retaliation.

The complainant was married to the Petitioner No. 1 on

12.10.2020 and due to his torture she lodged the case being Mahila

P.S. Case No. 152 of 2022 under Section 498A/34 IPC and Section

3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the husband. In his over

anxiety to counter the allegations of the petitioner No. 1, the

husband of the complainant lodged the instant frivolous case with

completely mala fide intentions. Learned senior counsel for the

petitioners has informed that the matter was settled and the

marriage was dissolved in view of the judgment dated 03.11.2024

passed by Darul Quaza Imarat Shariah, Phulwari Sharif, Patna. A

copy of the judgment of divorce dated 03.11.2024 provided by

learned senior counsel is kept on record.
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85158 of 2023 dt.01-05-2026
                                3/6




          5. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed

the quashing of the order of the FIR of Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No.

925 of 2022 arising out of Complaint Case No. 14894 of 2022.

          6. In such view of the matter, the present prosecution is

nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court in view of Hon'ble

Supreme Court decision rendered in the case of State of Haryana

vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC

604. Moreover, in the case of Abhishek vs. State of Madhya

Pradesh reported in [2023 SCC Online SC 1083] Hon’ble the

Supreme Court in Paragraph Nos. 13 to 16 has held as under:-

                         “(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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85158 of 2023 dt.01-05-2026
                   4/6




  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 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
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85158 of 2023 dt.01-05-2026
                               5/6




              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.

         7. Resultantly, the FIR of Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No.

925 of 2022 dated 25.12.2022 arising out of Complaint Case No.
                                 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85158 of 2023 dt.01-05-2026
                                                    6/6




                    14894 of 2022 instituted for the offences under Sections 341, 323,

                    342, 307, 504 and 506 IPC is quashed so far as the petitioners are

                    concerned.

                              8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.



                                                    (Ansul, J)
Vikash/-
AFR/NAFR              NAFR
CAV DATE              N/A
Uploading Date
Transmission Date