RAJEEV RANJAN @ RAJEEV RANJAN CHAUBEY vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53595 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-573 Year-2010 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Gaya
======================================================
RAJEEV RANJAN @ RAJEEV RANJAN CHAUBEY Son of Rajanikant
Chaubey Resident of Village- Flate No.310, Priyambika Apartment, Rasbihari
Path, Vijay Nagar, Bailey Road, Police Station- Rupaspur, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Niru Chaubey Wife of Rajeev Ranjan Chaubey Daughter of Late Ram
Naresh Upadhyay Resident of Mohalla- Tail Bigha, Rang Bahadur Road,
Police Station- District- Gaya.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shyam Bihari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-05-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing
of the order dated 09.07.2010 passed by the learned Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in Complaint Case No. 573 of 2010,
whereby cognizance under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3
and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken.
3. The complainant initially filed Complaint Case No.
573 of 2010 against five persons, including Rajnikant Chaubey,
who expired during the pendency of the case. Accused No. 2,
Sandhya Chaturvedi, wife of Rajnikant Chaubey, also expired

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53595 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026
2/11
during the pendency of the case, and the proceedings against both
deceased accused have accordingly abated by operation of law.
Accused No. 3, Rajeev Ranjan Chaubey, is the husband of the
complainant. Accused No. 4, Sarika Kumari, is the unmarried
nanad of the complainant, and Accused No. 5, Ritesh Ranjan
Chaubey, is the brother-in-law. The complaint was filed alleging
offences under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the
husband had filed Matrimonial Divorce Case No. 390 of 2021 and
the learned Additional Principal Family Judge, Family Court,
Patna, vide order dated 05.02.2024, granted the parties a divorce
on the basis of mutual consent. The order records the terms of the
compromise, under which the husband paid Rs. 86 lakhs to the
wife. Learned counsel further states that though the complainant-
wife has received the said amount through the bank, she is not
appearing before this Court, despite her undertaking that she
would assist in quashing or withdrawing the case. This Court has
perused the order dated 05.02.2024 passed in Matrimonial Divorce
Case No. 390 of 2021. A certified copy of that order, along with
the compromise petition, has been tendered by counsel for the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53595 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026
3/11
petitioner at the bar and is accepted and taken on record as part of
the case file.
5. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Ruchi Agarwal vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal reported in
(2005) 3 SCC 299, it was held in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 as under:
"7. It is based on the said compromise the
appellant obtained a divorce as desired by her under
Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and in partial
compliance with the terms of the compromise she
withdrew the criminal case filed under Section 125 of
the Criminal Procedure Code but for reasons better
known to her she did not withdraw that complaint from
which this appeal arises. That apart after the order of
the High Court quashing the said complaint on the
ground of territorial jurisdiction, she has chosen to file
this appeal. It is in this background, we will have to
appreciate the merits of this appeal.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, however, contended that though the
appellant had signed the compromise deed with the
abovementioned terms in it, the same was obtained by
the respondent husband and his family under threat and
coercion and in fact she did not receive lump sum
maintenance and her stridhan properties. We find it
extremely difficult to accept this argument in the
background of the fact that pursuant to the compromise
deed the respondent husband has given her a consent
divorce which she wanted, thus had performed his part

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53595 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026
4/11
of the obligation under the compromise deed. Even the
appellant partially performed her part of the
obligations by withdrawing her criminal complaint
filed under Section 125. It is true that she had made a
complaint in writing to the Family Court where Section
125 Cr.P.C. proceedings were pending that the
compromise deed was filed under coercion but she
withdrew the same and gave a statement before the said
court affirming the terms of the compromise which
statement was recorded by the Family Court and the
proceedings were dropped and a divorce was obtained.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant
having received the relief she wanted without contest
on the basis of the terms of the compromise, we cannot
now accept the argument of the learned counsel for the
appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant
indicates that the criminal complaint from which this
appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the
respondents.
9. In view of the above said subsequent
events and the conduct of the appellant, it would be an
abuse of the process of the court if the criminal
proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to
continue. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion
to do complete justice, we should while dismissing this
appeal also quash the proceedings arising from
criminal case Cr. No. 224 of 2003 registered in Police
Station Bilaspur (District Rampur) filed under Sections
498-A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondents

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53595 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026
5/11
herein. It is ordered accordingly. The appeal is
disposed of."
6. In Anurag Vijaykumar Goel vs. State of Maharashtra
& Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1611, it was held in
paragraphs 4, 13, 14, 15 and 16 as under:
"4. The first motion dated 03.09.2022 for
divorce on mutual consent under Section 13B of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was moved by both the
parties along with settlement entered into between them,
which was recorded by the Family Court on 14.09.2022.
But before the second motion, the respondent-wife
resiled from the agreement which prompted the
appellant to approach the High Court of Bombay for
quashing the criminal proceedings pending before the
Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court at Sewree,
Mumbai arising out of CR No. 63 of 2018 dated
19.04.2018. The principal ground raised before the
High Court was the appellant's withdrawal from the
divorce on mutual consent, which according to the
appellant justified the quashing of the criminal
proceedings. The appellant also moved the High Court
of Delhi alleging contempt insofar as withdrawing from
the consent and refusing to follow it up on the second
motion before the Family Court. A learned Single Judge
of the Delhi High Court punished the respondent for
contempt which order was set aside by the Division
Bench on an appeal filed by the respondent.
13. We have already found that the
allegations in the statement of 19.04.2018 based on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53595 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026
6/11
which the crime was registered against the appellant
inter-alia under Section 498-A are common-place,
banal and vague, without any specific instances
mentioned and filed one year after the admitted
separation of the couple. The High Court in the
impugned order has rejected the contention of the
appellant to quash the criminal proceedings with
respect to the agreement having been resiled from, at
the second motion. We cannot fault the findings of the
High Court that the ground raised of the respondent-
wife having withdrawn from her consent on the second
motion, is perfectly in exercise of the statutory right of
the respondent-wife. However, but for a casual
reference to the other grounds set out in the petition, the
High Court has not considered those at all. It was
observed peremptorily that the contrary statements of
the witnesses should be tested in a trial and there is no
question of the veracity of the allegations in the FIR or
charge-sheet being considered, at this stage. This
cannot be upheld especially when the statement leading
to the charge-sheet does not have any grounds leading
to an allegation under Section 498-A of the IPC.
14. We have already held, but for marital
squabbles blown out of proportion there is nothing
substantial in the complainant leading to the
registration of crime under Section 498-A. Reference
can be usefully made to the trite principle for exercise
of powers under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. from the oft
quoted decision in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal.
Suffice to refer to one of the grounds laid down by the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53595 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026
7/11
Constitution Bench, but with a caveat that there cannot
be any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelized and inflexible guideline or rigid formulae:
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety
do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused."
15. The respondent who appeared in person
has specifically taken us through the Division Bench
order of the High Court of Delhi which absolved her
from the contempt proceedings; especially the
observation that the attempt of initiating the contempt is
only a coercion to participate in the second motion for
divorce. It was also found that an affidavit of
undertaking recorded at the first motion would
crystallise into an undertaking only if the terms are
agreed upon and divorce is consented to by both the
parties at the second motion. We are quite in agreement
with the finding regarding the second motion, as
already observed. But on the question of the
maintainability of contempt proceedings, we need not
say anything further, since it has been informed across
the Bar that there is an SLP filed from the said order
and that in the event of closure of all proceedings under
Article 142, the appellant would not pursue the same.
16. The facts as detailed by us herein above
and the acrimonious relations between the parties for
the last 8 years without any let-up and the multiple
legal proceedings pending, clearly indicate that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53595 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026
8/11
relationship has irretrievably broken down. We are
convinced that the invocation of Article 142 is
imperative in the above case to do complete justice to
both the parties, on being satisfied that the marriage
has been rendered totally unworkable, emotionally dead
and beyond salvation as held in Shilpa Sailesh. What
remains is only the terms on which the parties could go
their separate ways to live their lives independently,
without the yoke of a troubled marriage. The terms of
the settlement agreed upon according to us, does justice
to the estranged wife and does not unduly burden the
husband."
7. In Dhananjay Rathi vs. Ruchika Rathi in Criminal
Appeal No. 1924 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1878 of
2026, it was held in paragraphs 28 and 29 as under:
"28. Again coming to the facts of the case,
even at the cost of repetition, we would like to mention
that as per the Settlement Agreement, the Appellant-
Husband was to pay Rs. 75,00,000/- as first
installment of the final settlement amount along with a
sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- for purchase of the car, both of
which had been complied with. The Appellant-
Husband has also returned the jewellery items as per
Appendix A to P to the Respondent-Wife. The
Respondent-Wife, as part of her obligations under the
Settlement Agreement, transferred Rs. 2,52,38,794/- to
the Appellant-Husband at the time of filing the First
Motion Petition.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53595 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026
9/11
29. However, the Respondent-Wife refused
to honour the terms of the Settlement Agreement and
refused to sign the Second Motion Petition stating that
she had withdrawn her consent from the divorce.
Though it is well within the law for any party to
withdraw consent at any stage before grant of divorce
by mutual agreement, however, in case a compromise
deed or a settlement agreement has been entered into
between the parties regarding the full and final
settlement of their disputes, it is not open for the party
to step back from the terms and conditions so arrived
between them."
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
has vehemently opposed the quashing of the order of cognizance
dated 09.07.2010.
9. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). Having considered the
facts of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the decisions cited above, this Court is of the view that
the present case falls squarely within the ratio of Ruchi Agarwal
and Dhananjay Rathi. The marriage between the petitioner and the
complainant has been dissolved by mutual consent by the learned
Family Court, Patna vide order dated 05.02.2024. A substantial
settlement amount of Rs. 86 lakhs has been paid by the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53595 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026
10/11
to the complainant and has been duly received by her through
banking channels. The complainant had undertaken to assist in
quashing or withdrawing the criminal proceedings but has failed to
appear before this Court. Continuation of the criminal proceedings
in these circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of
the court and would serve no purpose other than harassment of the
petitioner and the other surviving accused. The order of
cognizance is accordingly liable to be quashed.
10. Consequent upon the foregoing, the order taking
cognizance dated 09.07.2010 is quashed in its entirety. All
proceedings arising out of the said complaint against the petitioner
Rajeev Ranjan @ Rajeev Ranjan Chaubey, as well as against
Accused No. 4 Sarika Kumari, daughter of Rajnikant Chaubey,
and Accused No. 5 Ritesh Ranjan Chaubey, son of Rajnikant
Chaubey, are hereby quashed.
11. However, if the complainant is in possession of any
information which may have a bearing on this matter, she shall be
at liberty to file a review petition.
12. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.
(Ansul, J)
abhishekkr/-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53595 of 2019 dt.12-05-2026
11/11
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 04.06.2026
Transmission Date