IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-294 Year-2021 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- East Champaran ======================================================

Renu Devi, D/o Mohan Prasad, R/O- Vill- Mohalla old Exchange Road, Ward no. 18, P.S- Sitamarhi, Distt- Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Dileep Gupta S/o Late Kamla Prasad R/o vill - Sriram Path, Koiriya Tola, ward no. 25, P.S. - Raxaul, Distt.- East Champaran.

... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate Mr.Md.Farooq, Advocate Mr.Akshay Tripathi, Advocate Mr.Himanshu Ranjan, Advocate For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms.Renu Kumari, A.P.P.

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 05-01-2026 Heard Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 and Ms. Renu Kumari, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred for quashing the order dated 28.03.2022, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2^nd Class, Raxaul at Motihari in Complaint Case No. 294/2021 (Enquiry No. 02/22) has taken cognizance of the offence under section 323,341,504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and issued processes against the petitioner.

3. The prosecution case, as alleged, is that the complainant, who is the father of the daughter-in-law of the petitioner, has submitted a compliant petition stating therein that his daughter was subjected to harassment on account of demand of dowry and she was driven out from her matrimonial home, pursuant to which an FIR was lodged on 21.03.2021. It is further alleged that on 15.09.2021, thereafter, the complainant along with his daughters went to the house of the petitioner to take the clothes of his daughter and whereupon the petitioner allegedly closed the gate, abused them and threatened them for dire consequences. On the basis of the said allegations, the present complaint has been instituted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire prosecution story is false, fabricated and malicious, and has been instituted only to harass the petitioner. It is contended that there is no specific or overt allegation against the petitioner which would constitute the alleged offences. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the complaint has been instituted after an unexplained delay of nine days and no satisfactory explanation for such delay has been explained, which further creates doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a material contradiction exists in the case of the complainant. While in the complaint petition it has been stated that no injury was sustained, but in the Solemn Affirmation, it is alleged that injuries were sustained. Such inconsistency goes to the root of the prosecution case and seriously affects its credibility.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein categories were laid down for exercise of inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings, including cases where allegations are inherently improbable and proceedings are maliciously instituted to harass the accused.

6. Reliance has also been placed upon in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of U.P., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that mere casual reference to family members in matrimonial disputes, without specific allegations of active involvement, does not justify criminal prosecution. The Court cautioned against the growing te