IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32624 of 2018

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-283 Year-2016 Thana- SHASTRINAGAR District- Patna

======================================================

1.Dhananjai Jha, Son of Late Baldeo Jha,

2.Nilima Jha, Wife of Dhananjai Jha, Both Resident of Flat No. 203, Veena

Shree Apartment, New Punaichak, P.S.- Shastrinagar, District- Patna-

800023.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The State of Bihar

2.Tanushree Sandilya Jha, Ex-Wife of Avinash Jha, Daughter of Amarnath

Mishra, Resident of 203, Dhaneshwar Heritage, Priya Darshi Nagar, P.S.-

Rupaspur, District- Patna.

... ... Opposite Party/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.P.P.

For the O.P. No.2: Mr. Kripa Nand Jha, Advocate

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

Date : 10-02-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Party

No.2 (O.P. No.2).

2. The present application has been filed on behalf

of the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 23.04.2018

passed in Shastrinagar P.S. Case No.283 of 2016 by the learned

Sub-Judge IV-cum-A.C.J.M., Patna (hereinafter referred to as

‘Magistrate’) wherein cognizance for offences under Sections

498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections

3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has been taken

against the petitioners who are in-laws of the informant (O.P.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026

2/20

No.2) and also against her husband.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the

marriage between O.P. No.2 and Avinash Jha (co-accused), son

of the petitioners, was solemnized on 10.12.2006 at Patna as per

Hindu rites and rituals with the consent of both families. At the

time of marriage, O.P. No.2 was employed in Japan, whereas

her husband was employed in a company at Sweden. It is stated

that after marriage, she was subjected to mental and physical

cruelty on account of demand for dowry, including a luxury car

and an apartment at Delhi, and was humiliated and assaulted by

her husband and in-laws (petitioners herein). Further allegations

have been made that substantial articles were given by her

parental family, including gold, silver, cash, furniture, utensils,

clothes, and household articles at the time of her marriage and

on the birth of their daughter on 16.04.2010 in Sweden, but her

streedhan was neither returned nor accounted for. It is also

alleged that during her stay abroad and in India, she was

compelled to transfer her salary to the accounts of her father-in-

law and was subjected to repeated acts of harassment and

assault. Allegations of forcible extraction of money, snatching of

ATM cards by her father-in-law and cheque books, and

unauthorized withdrawal of funds have also been made. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026

3/20

O.P. No.2 has further alleged that she was subjected to cruelty

during her pregnancies, including pressure for sex determination

tests and attempts to compel her to abort the female foetus. It is

stated that she gave birth to her second daughter on 15.05.2015

in Sweden, and continued to face ill-treatment from her husband

and in-laws. In between 2006 to 2014, O.P. No.2 had handled

everything alone, from her office works to household works and

her husband had merely focused on his career. Allegations have

also been made regarding deception in obtaining her signatures

on documents written in a foreign language, which resulted into

dissolution of her marriage with Avinash Jha (co-accused) vide

judgment dated 29.08.2014 passed by the Gävle District Court

in Sweden, without her informed consent. It has been alleged

that on 20.06.2016, when the O.P. No.2 went to her matrimonial

home at Patna along with her father and some relatives to

demand return of her jewellery and belongings, she was

threatened with dire consequences. On the basis of these

allegations, O.P. No.2 lodged a written report on 20.06.2016

before the In-charge of Shastrinagar Police Station alleging

cruelty and dowry-related harassment by her husband and in-

laws. On the basis of the said written report, Shastrinagar P.S.

Case No. 283 of 2016 dated 20.06.2016 was registered under

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026

4/20

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act, where after the investigation, the

police submitted charge-sheet on 31.01.2018 bearing C.S. No.25

of 2018.

4. After perusal of the materials collected during

the course of investigation, the learned Magistrate, vide

impugned order dated 23.04.2018, took cognizance for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A & 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act against the three accused persons, namely, Avinash Jha,

Dhananjai Jha (petitioner no.1) and Nilima Jha (petitioner no.2).

Petitioners, being aggrieved by the said order of cognizance

against them, have preferred this application praying to quash

the impugned order dated 23.04.2018 passed against them. This

Court vide order dated 12.10.2018 stayed the further

proceedings in the case as regards petitioner nos.1 & 2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the

impugned order of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate

and submitted that on bare perusal of the F.I.R. it is explicit that

the marriage between O.P. No.2 and Avinash Jha (son of

petitioners) was solemnized on 10.12.2006 and they were living

separately in different foreign countries, both professionally

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026

5/20

employed and earning a substantial income. O.P. No.2 is

presently residing in Japan. It is submitted that the matrimonial

discord arose out of personal differences between the couple

during their stay abroad, culminating in dissolution of marriage

by a decree of divorce dated 29.08.2014 passed by a competent

court in Sweden with the consent of both parties, without the

involvement or knowledge of the petitioners. It is further

submitted that the petitioners, being aged parents, were not

residing with the couple except for a brief period when they

visited India during vacation and had no occasion to interfere in

their conjugal life. Also, the divorce between the couple was

granted in 2014 and the F.I.R. was lodged by the O.P. No.2 in

2016 just to oppress and vex the petitioners.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further

submitted that there is no material indicating involvement of the

petitioners in any alleged act of cruelty or dowry demand and

that even foreign proceedings revealed serious disputes only

between the spouses, resulting in custody of the minor first child

being granted to the son of the petitioners. It is submitted that

the couple were earning handsome salaries while working in

reputed companies in foreign country, where they had their own

house and were blessed with two children. However, due to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026

6/20

matrimonial discord, O.P. No.2 has unnecessarily dragged the

petitioners into the said dispute, despite there being no fault

attributable to them. The petitioners had no role, or influence

whatsoever in the matrimonial life of O.P. No.2 and their son.

Thus, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners,

who are at an advanced stage of their lives. It is further

submitted that the criminal case has been instituted as a

counterblast to an earlier F.I.R. lodged by petitioner no.2 arising

out of an incident at the petitioners’ residence and is nothing but

an abuse of the process of law.

7. Learned counsel, moreover, submitted that both

the petitioners are aged about 75 years, and due to subsisting

poor health, they have shifted to and residing at Greater Noida

for their treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi for more than last 5

years. It is submitted that the petitioner no.2 has been diagnosed

with carcinoma and is totally bedridden. Learned counsel

further submitted that both the petitioners have falsely been

implicated with ulterior motive based on concocted and

frivolous story by the O.P. No.2.

8. Learned counsel has put his reliance on various

judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including Arnesh

Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr., reported in (2014) 8 SCC

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026

7/20

273; K. Subba Rao and Ors. v. State of Telangana and Ors.,

reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452; and Rajesh Sharma and Ors. v.

State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., reported in (2018) 10 SCC

472 wherein it has been observed that owing to the surge in

matrimonial disputes in recent times, the instances of false

implication have markedly increased and courts must exercise

due circumspection while proceeding against relatives specially

when the allegations are omnibus. It is, lastly, submitted that the

ingredients of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and Section 3

& 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in no instance, can be found,

thus, the impugned order against the petitioners be quashed to

prevent the abuse of the process of court and for the ends of

justice.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for O.P. No.2

submitted that the allegations made in the F.I.R. disclose a

continuous course of conduct amounting to cruelty and dowry

related harassment, beginning soon after the marriage and

extending over several years, both in India and abroad. Learned

counsel further submitted that the petitioners have provoked and

instigated the co-accused to torture and assault the O.P. No.2. It

is submitted that substantial dowry articles, including gold,

silver, cash, household goods were given at the time of birth of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026

8/20

their maiden child, but neither the streedhan was returned nor

they were accounted for. Learned counsel further submitted that

mere residence of spouses abroad does not absolve the

petitioners from their liability, particularly when specific

allegations have been made against them. It is submitted that the

alleged divorce was cunningly obtained in a foreign nation

while the O.P. No.2 was residing with her husband/co-accused

under the same roof, however, O.P. No.2 has filed a Matrimonial

Suit No.884 of 2017 for declaring the divorce obtained in

foreign nation to nullity and now, the said issue is pending

before this Court in appeal in a separate proceeding which is not

required to be dealt within this proceeding. It is further

submitted that the decree of divorce obtained in the foreign

country can neither, by itself, nullify the criminal liability

arising out of the offences committed by the petitioners during

the subsistence of marriage, nor can it be used as a ground to

stifle legitimate prosecution at the threshold. It is submitted that

at the time of taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate is only

to see that prima facie case is made out or not against the

petitioners. It is, lastly submitted that the impugned order is just

and proper, and the present petition seeking quashing of the

impugned order is liable to be dismissed.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026

9/20

10. Learned A.P.P. for the State supported the

impugned order and submitted that the F.I.R., read as a whole

prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offence under

Sections 498A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act. It is submitted that the investigation has

culminated in submission of charge-sheet against the petitioners

and, therefore, learned Magistrate was justified in taking

cognizance of the offences. Moreover, it is submitted that at the

stage of quashing, the Court is not required to appreciate

evidence or adjudicate upon disputed question of facts, and the

same may be left open to be decided during trial. Therefore, the

impugned order warrants no interference by this Court.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for

petitioners, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 as well as the

learned A.P.P. appearing for the State, and upon perusal of the

materials available on record it is not controverted that the O.P.

No.2 was married to Avinash Jha (son of the petitioners) on

10.12.2006 and they were living apart in different countries due

to their professional employment. In the meantime, the couple

was granted divorce vide judgment dated 29.08.2014 passed by

the Gävle District Court in Sweden with their mutual consent.

However, the validity of the said judgment of divorce is under

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026

10/20

challenge in a separate proceeding. On written complaint of the

O.P. No.2, F.I.R. against the petitioners and their son Avinash

Jha was registered on 20.06.2016 alleging offences punishable

under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under

Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

12. It is pertinent to note that the court owes a duty

to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough

scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of

truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the

sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge,

more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial

dispute.

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, time and again,

has also made the stance very clear with respect to the criminal

allegations arising out of matrimonial discords. The Hon’ble

Apex Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, reported in

(2010) 7 SCC 667 has observed as under:

“32. It is a matter of common experience

that most of these complaints under Section

498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the

moment over trivial issues without proper

deliberations. We come across a large

number of such complaints which are not

even bona fide and are filed with oblique

motive. At the same time, rapid increase in

the number of genuine cases of dowry

harassment is also a matter of serious

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026

11/20

concern.

33. The learned members of the Bar have

enormous social responsibility and

obligation to ensure that the social fibre of

family life is not ruined or demolished. They

must ensure that exaggerated versions of

small incidents should not be reflected in the

criminal complaints. Majority of the

complaints are filed either on their advice or

with their concurrence. The learned

members of the Bar who belong to a noble

profession must maintain its noble traditions

and should treat every complaint under

Section 498-A as a basic human problem

and must make serious endeavour to help the

parties in arriving at an amicable resolution

of that human problem. They must discharge

their duties to the best of their abilities to

ensure that social fibre, peace and

tranquillity of the society remains intact. The

members of the Bar should also ensure that

one complaint should not lead to multiple

cases.

34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of

the complaint the implications and

consequences are not properly visualised by

the complainant that such complaint can

lead to insurmountable harassment, agony

and pain to the complainant, accused and

his close relations.

35. The ultimate object of justice is to

find out the truth and punish the guilty and

protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a

herculean task in majority of these

complaints. The tendency of implicating the

husband and all his immediate relations is

also not uncommon. At times, even after the

conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to

ascertain the real truth. 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. The

allegations of harassment of husband's

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026

12/20

close relations who had been living in

different cities and never visited or rarely

visited the place where the complainant

resided would have an entirely different

complexion. The allegations of the

complaint are required to be scrutinised

with great care and circumspection.”

(emphasis supplied)

14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta

Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., reported

in (2012) 10 SCC 741 has observed as under:

“20. Coming to the facts of this case, when

the contents of the FIR are perused, it is

apparent that there are no allegations

against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji

Mehrotra except casual reference of their

names which have been included in the FIR

but mere casual reference of the names of

the family members in a matrimonial dispute

without allegation of active involvement in

the matter would not justify taking

cognizance against them overlooking the

fact borne out of experience that there is a

tendency to involve the entire family

members of the household in the domestic

quarrel taking place in a matrimonial

dispute specially if it happens soon after the

wedding.

21. It would be relevant at this stage to

take note of an apt observation of this Court

recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao v. L.H.V.

Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3

SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] wherein

also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had

held that the High Court should have

quashed the complaint arising out of a

matrimonial dispute wherein all family

members had been roped into the

matrimonial litigation which was quashed

and set aside. Their Lordships observed

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026

13/20

therein with which we entirely agree that :

(SCC p. 698, para 12)

‘12. There has been an outburst of

matrimonial dispute in recent times.

Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the

main purpose of which is to enable the

young couple to settle down in life and

live peacefully. But little matrimonial

skirmishes suddenly erupt which often

assume serious proportions resulting

in commission of heinous crimes in

which elders of the family are also

involved with the result that those who

could have counselled and brought

about rapprochement are rendered

helpless on their being arrayed as

accused in the criminal case. There

are many other reasons which need

not be mentioned here for not

encouraging matrimonial litigation so

that the parties may ponder over their

defaults and terminate their disputes

amicably by mutual agreement instead

of fighting it out in a court of law

where it takes years and years to

conclude and in that process the

parties lose their “young” days in

chasing their “cases” in different

courts.’

The view taken by the Judges in this matter

was that the courts would not encourage

such disputes.”

15. Moreover, while taking note of the phenominal

increase in matrimonial disputes in the recent years, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) has observed

as under:

“4. There is phenomenal increase in

matrimonial disputes in recent years. The

institution of marriage is greatly revered in

this country. Section 498-A IPC was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026

14/20

introduced with avowed object to combat the

menace of harassment to a woman at the

hands of her husband and his relatives. The

fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable

and non-bailable offence has lent it a

dubious place of pride amongst the

provisions that are used as weapons rather

than shield by disgruntled wives. The

simplest way to harass is to get the husband

and his relatives arrested under this

provision. In quite a number of cases,

bedridden grandfathers and grandfathers of

the husbands, their sisters living abroad for

decades are arrested. “Crime in India 2012

Statistics” published by the National Crime

Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs

shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over

India during the year 2012 for the offence

under Section 498-A IPC, 9.4% more than

the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those

arrested under this provision in 2012 were

women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that

mothers and sisters of the husbands were

liberally included in their arrest net. Its

share is 6% out of the total persons arrested

under the crimes committed under Penal

Code, 1860. It accounts for 4.5% of total

crimes committed under different sections of

the Penal Code, more than any other crimes

excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-

sheeting in cases under Section 498-AIPC is

as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate

is only 15%, which is lowest across all

heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are

pending trial of which on current estimate,

nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in

acquittal.”

16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Subba Rao

(supra) has observed in para 6 as under:

“6. Criminal proceedings are not normally

interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026

15/20

unless there is an abuse of the process of a

court. This Court, at the same time, does not

hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of

justice. See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

[State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp

(1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] . The

courts should be careful in proceeding

against the distant relatives in crimes

pertaining to matrimonial disputes and

dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband

should not be roped in on the basis of

omnibus allegations unless specific

instances of their involvement in the crime

are made out. See Kans Raj v. State of

Punjab [Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000)

5 SCC 207 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 935] and

Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P.

[Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P.,

(2014) 16 SCC 551 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri)

536].”

17. Relying on the aforesaid judgments, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana

and Anr., reported in (2025) 3 SCC 756 has observed as under:

“35. In one of the recent pronouncements of

this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P.

[Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., (2023) 15

SCC 488] , authored by one of us (J.B.

Pardiwala, J.), the legal principle applicable

apropos Section 482CrPC was examined.

Therein, it was observed that when an

accused comes before the High Court,

invoking either the inherent power under

Section 482CrPC 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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026

16/20

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.”

(emphasis supplied)

18. Taking reference of a recent judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nitin Ahluwalia v State of Punjab

and Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2013 as of para 9,

which is as under:

“Here, the respondent filed the complaint

after the grant of divorce, a month later.

Granted that the same is not expressly

prohibited by law, it certainly begs the

question as to why despite having been

separated from the appellant for almost

three years to the date, did the respondent

consider filing an application with the police

at that relevant time. To entertain the

possibility that the same is nothing but a

counterblast to the fact that the appellant

has two orders in his favour, one by the

Courts in Austria ordering the respondent to

bring the child back to Australia and the

other, by the Courts in Australia, accepting

the appellant's prayer for grant of divorce,

does not appear far-fetched.”

In the present case, the F.I.R. lodged by the O.P. No.2 in 2016

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026

17/20

which is two years after the decree of divorce granted by the

foreign court in the year 2014. Also, the petitioner no.2 has

registered an F.I.R. against the O.P. No.2 and her relatives prior

to that registered by the O.P. No.2.

19. Now, the law with respect to quashing of

criminal proceeding is well settled that while considering a

prayer to quash the criminal complaint and the consequential

proceedings at the threshold, the Court is required to examine

whether the allegations made in the complaint along with

materials in support thereof make out a prima facie case to

proceed against the accused or not. The reference to the same

has been made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments

including State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors.,

reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Pradeep Kumar

Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2025

SCC OnLine SC 1947.

20. In the instant case, upon careful consideration

of the materials available on record and the rival submissions, it

is evident that O.P. No.2 and her husband (Avinash Jha), who is

co-accused, were both professionally employed abroad even

prior to their marriage and, after solemnization of their marriage

on 10.12.2006, continued to reside at different foreign locations,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026

18/20

including Japan, China and Sweden. The record further

discloses that the couple lived in foreign countries

independently from the petitioners who remained in India. There

is no material to indicate that the petitioners had any physical

proximity or day-to-day control over the matrimonial life of the

couple. Moreover, the allegations contained in the F.I.R., when

read in their entirety, predominantly relate to matrimonial

discord between the spouses during their stay abroad and are

general and omnibus in nature so far as the petitioners are

concerned. Mere bald allegations of instigation are not sufficient

to sustain criminal prosecution against aged parents residing

separately. The marriage between O.P. No.2 and Avinash Jha

(son of the petitioners) stood dissolved by a decree of divorce

dated 29.08.2014 passed by the Gävle District Court in Sweden

with the consent of both parties, whose validity has been

challenged in a separate proceeding. After about two years of

the said divorce judgment passed by the Sweden Court, the

criminal case against the petitioners and their son (Avinash Jha)

was instituted in the year 2016. Accordingly, this Court holds

that no prima facie case is made out with respect to the alleged

offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and

under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026

19/20

petitioners and that the impugned order taking cognizance

against the petitioners warrants interference by this Court in

exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

21. Further, the materials on record do not disclose

any evidence collected during investigation showing

involvement of the petitioners in the alleged acts of cruelty,

misappropriation of streedhan or dowry demand. The charge-

sheet appears to have been submitted against the petitioners

without any independent corroboration of their alleged role.

Having regard to the admitted fact that the couple was living

independently abroad and the dispute essentially pertains to

inter se matrimonial differences between the spouses, this Court

is of the considered view that the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) squarely

applies to the facts of this case. Therefore, it is neither expedient

nor in the interest of justice to permit the present prosecution

against the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of this

case, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the

petitioners, who are in advanced stage of their lives, would

result in undue harassment and miscarriage of justice. The

misuse of criminal justice machinery is a matter of profound

concern.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32624 of 2018 dt.10-02-2026

20/20

22. In view of the legal principles and factual

analysis recorded hereinabove and considering the nature of

allegation against the petitioners, this Court finds that the order

dated 23.04.2018 passed by the learned Magistrate, so far as the

petitioners are concerned, has been passed in a mechanical

manner without application of judicial mind and permitting the

criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioners would

amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

23. Accordingly, the impugned order of cognizance

dated 23.04.2018 passed in Shastrinagar P.S. Case No.283 of

2016 by the learned Sub-Judge IV-cum-A.C.J.M., Patna qua the

petitioners is hereby quashed and set-aside..

24. The present application is, accordingly,

allowed.

25. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated

to the learned Trial Court forthwith.

utkarsh/-

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)

AFR/NAFR NAFR

CAV DATE 03.02.2026

Uploading Date 10.02.2026

Transmission Date 10.02.2026