Patna High Court – Orders
Nilima Jha And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 24 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7073 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1462 Year-2014 Thana- DARBHANGA COMPLAINT CASE
District- Darbhanga
======================================================
1. Nilima Jha and Ors wife of Narendra Nath Jha resident of village - Dhakjari,
P.S. Benipatti, District - Madhubani.
2. Narendra Nath Jha son of Late Kamla Nand Jha resident of village -
Dhakjari, P.S. Benipatti, District - Madhubani.
3. Taranand Mishra son of Late Vishwanath Mishra resident of village -
Thalwar Sobhipatti, P.S. Ashok Paper Mill, District - Darbhanga.
4. Mukesh Kumar Jha son of Sri Narendra Nath Jha resident of village -
Dhakjari, P.S. Benipatti, District - Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Smt. Pooja Jha daughter of Amarendra Kumar Choudhary resident of
Mohalla - Mishra Tola, Police Station - Town, Darbhanga.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binodanand Mishra, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Sandhya Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Gunjan Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Dr. Mrityunjaya Kumar Gautam, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ashish, Advocate
Mr. GL Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 24-07-2026
Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the
Opposite Party No. 2.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing
of the order dated 31.07.2015 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.,
Darbhanga in complaint Case No. 1462 of 2014, whereby
cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7073 of 2017(4) dt.24-07-2026
2/8
offences punishable under Sections 384, 406, 498(A) of the
I.P.C. and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners seeks
permission to withdraw the present application with respect to
petitioner no. 3, Taranand Mishra, as he passed away during
the pendency of this application.
4. Prayer is allowed.
5. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed as
withdrawn with respect to the petitioner no. 3, Taranand
Mishra.
7. As per the prosecution case, the marriage of the
complainant was solemnized with the petitioner no. 4, namely,
Mukesh Kumar Jha, on 10.12.2010. Soon after the marriage, the
accused persons started demanding dowry, and upon non-
fulfillment of the same, the complainant was subjected to threats
and cruelty. It is further alleged that the petitioner no. 4, her
husband, attempted to kill her by pressing her neck.
8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits
that petitioner no. 1 is the mother-in-law, petitioner no. 2 is the
father-in-law, and petitioner no. 4 is the husband of the
complainant. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further
submits that prior to the filing of the present case, the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7073 of 2017(4) dt.24-07-2026
3/8
no. 4 had instituted a petition for restitution of conjugal rights
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned
Principal Judge, East District Family Court, Vishwas Nagar,
New Delhi, as petitioner no. 4 was working and residing in
Delhi at the relevant time. It has further been submitted that the
learned Principal Judge ordered the issuance of notice on
30.04.2014 and the same was received by the complainant on
25.05.2014, which finds mention in the order dated 22.08.2014
passed in the said matrimonial suit. It has further been submitted
that upon filing of a fresh affidavit by petitioner no. 4 as
directed by the concerned Court, fresh notice was issued.
Despite valid service of notice, the complainant did not choose
to appear in the matrimonial suit which was ultimately allowed
by judgment dated 17.08.2016. It has further been submitted
that the present complaint case was instituted on 01.09.2014,
after the complainant had received notice of the said
matrimonial suit for restitution of conjugal rights. It has also
been submitted that even after the suit for restitution of conjugal
rights was decreed, the complainant, despite having knowledge
through the Court, did not choose to reside with petitioner no. 4.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further submitted
that Opposite Party No. 2 subsequently filed Matrimonial Suit
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7073 of 2017(4) dt.24-07-2026
4/8
No. 51 of 2016 before the Court of the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Darbhanga for grant of divorce. Thereafter,
petitioner no. 4 appeared in the said proceeding, and the matter
was referred for conciliation. It has been submitted at the Bar
that the conciliation proceedings failed, and ultimately, a decree
of divorce in favour of Opposite Party No. 2 was passed by
judgment and decree dated 05.12.2022. It has further been
submitted that the proceedings against the co-accused persons,
namely, Puja Jha (sister-in-law), Mithilesh Kumar (brother-in-
law/Bhaisur), and Kajal Jha (married sister-in-law) of Opposite
Party No. 2, were quashed vide order dated 06.07.2023 passed
in Cr. Misc. No. 9518 of 2016, whereby the impugned order
taking cognizance against them was set aside.
9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that much water has flown since the lodging of the
present case against the petitioners by Opposite Party No. 2, and
in the meantime, a decree of divorce has been passed in favour
of Opposite Party No. 2 against her husband, petitioner no. 4. It
has been contended that the present case was maliciously
instituted with the only intention of wreaking vengeance against
the petitioners and with a view to spite personal score with a
malicious intent. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7073 of 2017(4) dt.24-07-2026
5/8
referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. State of Bihar
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162 and has submitted that
since there are general and omnibus allegation against petitioner
nos. 1 and 2 the same deserve to be quashed with respect to
them. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also
submitted referring to a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Anr.
reported in AIR 2013 SC 181 and referring to paragraph nos. 21
and 22 of the said judgment submitted that decree of divorce has
been passed between the parties. The relevant paragraph nos. 21
and 22 reads as under:-
21. In yet another case reported in
AIR 2003 SC 1386 in the matter of B.S. Joshi
and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. it was
observed that there is no doubt that the
object of introducing Chapter XXA
containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal
Code was to prevent the torture to a woman
by her husband or by relatives of her
husband. Section 498A was added with a
view to punish the husband and his relatives
who harass or torture the wife to coerce her
relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of
dowry. But if the proceedings are initiated by
the wife under Section 498A against the
husband and his relatives and subsequently
she has settled her disputes with her
husband and his relatives and the wife and
husband agreed for mutual divorce, refusal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7073 of 2017(4) dt.24-07-2026
6/8to exercise inherent powers by the High
Court would not be proper as it would
prevent woman from settling earlier. Thus,
for the purpose of securing the ends of
justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary,
Section 320, Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to
the exercise of power of quashing. It would
however be a different matter depending
upon the facts and circumstances of each
case whether to exercise or not to exercise
such a power.
22. In the instant matter, when the
complainant and her husband are divorced
as the complainant-wife secured an ex-parte
decree of divorce, the same could have
weighed with the High Court of consider
whether proceeding initiated prior to the
divorce decree was fit to be pursued in spite
of absence of specific allegations at least
against the brother and sister of the
complainant’s husband and whether
continuing with this proceeding could not
have amounted to abuse of the process of the
court. The High Court, however, seems not
to have examined these aspects carefully and
have thus side-tracked all these
considerations merely on the ground that the
territorial Jurisdiction could be raised only
before the magistrate conducting the trial.
10. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has
further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
in Suman Mishra & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.,
reported in 2025 INSC 203 and has submitted that criminal
proceedings in matrimonial disputes even taken at face value do
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7073 of 2017(4) dt.24-07-2026
7/8
not substantiate the offences alleged, where the allegation
against the husband and his family members lack specificity and
credibility and as such the continuation of the proceeding is
unjustified.
11. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned
counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has opposed the prayer of
the petitioners. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2
has further been submitted that the complainant in a solemn
affirmation and the witnesses during the course of the inquiry
supported the allegation against the petitioners and as such, the
learned Magistrate prima facie found the case to be true against
the petitioners and hence the order taking cognizance with
respect to the petitioners may not be interfered. It has further
been submitted that the petitioners have actively participated in
the commission of offence against the Opposite Party No. 2.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case in its totality, this Court finds that the present prosecution
against the petitioners has been initiated with mala fide intention
and personal vendetta. The continuation of the proceedings
against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7073 of 2017(4) dt.24-07-2026
8/8
the Court. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated
31.07.2015 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Darbhanga, in
Complaint Case No. 1462 of 2014 is hereby quashed.
14. This application is allowed.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Aarti/-
U T
