Patna High Court
Amarnath Prajapatti And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 25 February, 2026
Author: Jitendra Kumar
Bench: Jitendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35684 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-761 Year-2007 Thana- AURANGABAD COMPLAINT CASE
District- Aurangabad
======================================================
1. Amarnath Prajapatti, son of late Sheo Pujan Prajapati.
2. Prem Nath Prajapatti, son of late Sheo Pujan Prajapati
3. Kedar Prajapati, son of late Sheo Pujan Prajapati
4. Badri Nath Prajapati, son of late Sheo Pujan Prajapati.
5. Kashi Nath Prajapati, son of late Sheo Pujan Prajapati.
All resident of village Hamidganj, P.S. Daltonganj, Distt. Palamu (Jharkhand)
6. Sita Ram Prajapati, son of Sri Param Prajapati
7. Malti Devi, wife of Amar Nath Prajapati
Both are resident of village Golhana, P.S. Daltonganj, Distt. Palamu
(Jharkhand).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Domini Devi, wife of Sri Amar Nath Prajapati, daughter of Sri Paran
Prajapatti, r/o village Hamidganj, Mohalla Daltonganj, Police Station
Daltonganj, Distt. Daltonganj, (Jharkhand), presently residing at village
Mahrajganj, P.O. Hariharganj, P.S. Kutumba, Distt. Aurangabad (Bihar).
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Ravi Kumar Pandey, Advocate.
Ms. Preeti, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 25-02-2026
The present petition has been preferred for setting
aside the order dated 02.07.2016 passed by learned Sub
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, in Complaint Case
No. 761 of 2007 bearing corresponding Trial No. 103 of 2016
(Domini Devi Vs. Amar Nath Prajapati) whereby petition of the
petitioners for discharge has been rejected, holding that at the
stage of framing of charge, plea of no marriage between the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35684 of 2016 dt.25-02-2026
2/10
Complainant and Amar Nath Prajapati cannot be looked into.
2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the
case. As a matter of fact, the petitioner No. 1/Amar Nath
Prajapati has never married the Complainant/Domini Devi, who
is claiming to be his wife. Hence, no offence under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code or any other penal provisions is
made out. In support of his submission, he brings it to the notice
of the Court that vide order dated 10.03.2010 passed in Cr.
Misc. 18050 of 2009, (Amarnath Prajapati Vs. State of Bihar),
wherein the coordinate Bench of this Court has recorded that
Domini Devi has failed to identify Amar Nath Prajapati as her
husband. In pursuance of this observation of the co-ordinate
Bench, another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment
dated 05.05.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 35168 of 2012,
(Amarnath Prajapati Vs. State of Bihar and Domini Devi) has
recorded its order mentioning that on the last occasion the
counsel for the Complainant/Domini Devi was directed to
explain the recording of the order of co-ordinate Bench in Cr.
Misc. No. 18050 of 2009, but she did not appear to explain that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35684 of 2016 dt.25-02-2026
3/10
recording to the effect that Domini Devi had failed to identify
the petitioner No. 1, Amar Nath Prajapati as her husband.
Accordingly, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court quashed the
entire proceedings including the order dated 30.03.2012 passed
by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, in
Complaint Case No. 410 of 2010 vide judgment dated 5.5.2015
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 35168 of 2012.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also refers to
order dated 22.05.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Aurangabad, in Maintenance Case No. 211 of
2015 filed by Domini Devi against Amar Nath Prajapati who is
petitioner No. 1 herein, wherein learned Principal Judge has
dismissed the Maintenance petition holding that Domini Devi
has not proved the relationship between herself and Amar Nath
Prajapati as wife and husband.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits
that petitioner No. 1, Amar Nath Prajapati is claimed to be
husband of the Opposite Party No. 2, other petitioner Nos. 2 to
5 are brothers of petitioner No. 1 whereas petitioner Nos. 6 and
7 are father and mother of legally wedded wife of Amar Nath
Prajapati.
6. However, learned APP for the State opposes the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35684 of 2016 dt.25-02-2026
4/10
prayer of the petitioners for setting aside the impugned order
whereby learned Trial Court has rejected the application of the
petitioners for discharge. The ground given by learned Trial
Court in the impugned order is unassailable. It is settled
principle of law that at the stage of framing of charge, only a
prima facie case is required to be made out as per unrebutted
alleged facts and circumstances and as per material on record,
five witnesses have been examined by learned Court below
before framing of charge to the effect that there was relationship
of husband and wife between Petitioner No.1/Amar Nath
Prajapati and Opposite Party No.2/Domini Devi.
7. He further submits that plea of the Petitioner that
there was no marriage solemnized between petitioner no.1/Amar
Nath Prajapati and Opposite Party No.2/Domini Devi is a
defence which cannot be looked into at the stage of framing of
charge. This plea can be looked into only during the trial.
Hence, the Petitioner will have to wait for the trial and they
would get liberty to prove their defence.
8. He further submits that the orders of co-ordinate
Benches of this Court and even maintenance order passed by
learned Principal Judge, Family Court do not help the petitioner
because it is the Family Court which is competent to declare
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35684 of 2016 dt.25-02-2026
5/10
the marital status of the parties in a conclusive way. No other
court has any such jurisdiction to pass any decree in this regard.
Any finding of other court, except the Family Court in
matrimonial suit between the parties, are only tentative and may
be persuasive in nature, but that cannot be a conclusive proof.
Hence, despite the orders of learned co-ordinate Benches of this
Court and learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad,
in regard to marriage between Amar Nath Prajapati and Domini
Devi, the petitioners are required to prove the plea of defence
only during trial.
9. I considered the submissions advanced by both the
parties and perused the materials on record.
10. It is settled principle of law that, at the stage of
framing of charge, only a prima facie case as per uncontroverted
facts and circumstances of the prosecution case is required to be
made out. The Court cannot conduct mini trial at the stage of
framing of charge. The accused persons have to wait for the trial
to prove their defence. Here one may refer to Nilesh Kumar
Singh Vs. State of Bihar as reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Pat
6335 and decided by this Court. Here this Court has discussed in
detail what is requirement for framing of charge against an
accused, after referring to the following judicial precedents :
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35684 of 2016 dt.25-02-2026
6/10
(i) U.O.I. Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4
(ii) State of Maharashtra Vs. S. N. Thapa,
(1996) 4 SCC 659
(iii) State of M.P. Vs. Mohanlal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338
(iv) K. Ramakrishna Vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 8 SCC 547
(v) State of Orissa Vs. D. N. Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568
(vi) Soma Chakravarty Vs. State, (2007) 5 SCC 403
(vii) Onkar Nath Mishra Vs. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2008) 2 SCC 561
(viii) P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398
(ix) Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368
(x) Amit Kapoor Vs. R. Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460
(xi) State of T.N. Vs. N. S. Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709
(xii) State of Karnataka Vs. M.R. Hiremath,
(2019)7 SCC 515
(xiii) Dipakbhai J. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat,
(2019) 16 SCC 547
(xiv) State of Odisha Vs. Pratima Mohanty,
2021 SCC OnLine SC 1222
(xiv) Saranya v. Bharathi, (2021) 8 SCC 583
(xvi) Ghulam H. Beigh Vs. Mohd. Maqbool Magrey,
(2022) 12 SCC 657(xvii) CBI Vs. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379
(xviii) State of T.N. Vs. R. Soundirarasu,
(2023) 6 SCC 768
11. After discussing the judicial precedents in Nilesh
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35684 of 2016 dt.25-02-2026
7/10
Kumar Singh Case (supra), this Court has held as follows :
“38……………………………………………..
The Court should apply the test as to whether the
uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the
case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie
establish the offence or not. The Court can interfere only if
the allegations are found to be so patently absurd and
inherently improbable that no prudent person can believe
such an allegation or where the basic ingredients of a
criminal offence are not satisfied as per the material on
record.
39. It also emerges that at the stage of framing
charge, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. It
is required to consider the material on record only with a
view to find out if there is a ground for presuming that
accused had committed the offence, and not to see
whether prosecution has made out a case for conviction of
the accused. At this stage, the probative value of the
material on record cannot be gone into, and the material
brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as
true. The truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which
the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be
meticulously examined. Nor is any weight to be attached
to the probable defence of the accused. The court is
required to evaluate the material and documents on record
with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom
taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the
ingredients constituting the alleged offence. Even strong
suspicion based on material on record is sufficient to
frame charge.”
12. Moreover, it is also settled principle of law that
only Family Court/Civil Court is competent to pass any decree
in regard to marital status of the parties and any order in regard
to marital relationship by any other court is only tentative and
may be persuasive, but, in no case conclusive. Hence, there is
no conclusive proof on record to show that petitioner No.
1/Amar Nath Prajapati is not husband of Domini Devi.
13. Here, one may refer to Balram Yadav Vs.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35684 of 2016 dt.25-02-2026
8/10
Fulmaniya Yadav, as reported in (2016) 13 SCC 308, wherein
Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the jurisdiction of a
Court for declaring marital status of the parties. Here, Hon’ble
Supreme Court referred to the Family Courts Act, 1984 and held
as follows:
“7. Under Section 7(1) Explanation (b), a suit or a
proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of both
marriage and matrimonial status of a person is within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court, since under
Section 8, all those jurisdictions covered under Section 7
are excluded from the purview of the jurisdiction of the
civil courts. In case, there is a dispute on the matrimonial
status of any person, a declaration in that regard has to be
sought only before the Family Court. It makes no
difference as to whether it is an affirmative relief or a
negative relief. What is important is the declaration
regarding the matrimonial status. Section 20 also endorses
the view which we have taken, since the Family Courts
Act, 1984, has an overriding effect on other laws.”
14. Following the Balram Yadav case (supra), the
High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur has also expressed the
similar view, holding as follows:
“13. From the above stated legal provisons of the
Family Courts Act and also considering the object of the
establishment of the Family Courts Act, it is quite vivid,
that in case there is dispute on the matrimonial status of
any person a declaration in that regard has to be sought
only before the Family Court. Section 20 of the Act, 1984
also provides that the provisions of this Act shall have
overrriding effect and Section 8 of the Act also provides
exclusion of jurisdiction which has been enumerated in
Section 7 of the Act as well as proceedings under Chapter
11 of the CrPC. In the present facts of the case, the
plaintiff is claiming illegitimacy of a child whether it is
affirmative relief or negative relief what is important, is
the declaration regarding the matrimonial
status…………………….”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35684 of 2016 dt.25-02-2026
9/10
15. One may also refer to Santosh Vs. Suresh Pal, as
reported in (1998) 8 SCC 447, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held that finding of Court under Section 125 Cr.PC
regarding marital status of the party is tentative, subject to final
adjudication of marital status by the Civil Court/Family Court.
The relevant paragraph of the judgment may be referred to is as
follows:
“2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties
finally by their consent. The short question is whether the
appellant is the married wife of the respondent who had
failed and neglected to maintain her and therefore, she is
entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the respondent
was right when he contended that unless there is a legal
marriage between the parties, order under Section 125
CrPC cannot be passed. However, learned Judicial
Magistrate after considering this question came to the
conclusion that the respondent was already divorced from
his first wife and thereafter he had entered into a second
marriage with the appellant who was also a divorcee. The
High Court took the contrary view and observed that the
appellant had not proved that she was the married wife of
the respondent and that she had her first husband,
Satendra and there was no dissolution of her marriage
with him. These are the questions which are required to be
thrashed out finally in civil proceedings. In a proceeding
for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC the learned
Magistrate was expected to pass appropriate orders after
being prima facie satisfied about the marital status of
parties. It is obvious that the said decision will be a
tentative decision subject to final order in any civil
proceedings, if the parties are so advised to adopt.
Consequently, in our view the High Court was not
justified in interfering with the pure finding of fact
reached by learned Judicial Magistrate in a proceeding
under Section 125 CrPC and therefore only on this short
ground and without expressing any opinion on the marital
rights of the parties which may have to be adjudicated in
civil proceedings, the order of the learned Magistrate
passed under Section 125 CrPC will have to be affirmed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35684 of 2016 dt.25-02-2026
10/10and the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside.
The appeal is allowed. No costs.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
16. Coming to the case on hand, I find that there is no
material on record which may be treated as conclusive proof to
show that the petitioner No. 1/Amarnath Prajapatti is not the
husband of O.P. No. 2/Domini Devi and on the other hand, there
is pre-charge evidence on record to show that the petitioner No.
1/Amarnath Prajapatti had solemnized marriage with O.P. No.
2/Domini Devi. In view of such facts and circumstances along
with other allegations made by O.P. No. 2 against the
petitioners, there is sufficient material to frame charge against
them.
17. Hence, I find no illegality or impropriety in the
impugned order whereby learned Trial Court has dismissed the
application of the petitioners for discharge.
18. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
S.Ali/Shoaib
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 28.02.2026.
Transmission Date 28.02.2026.