RITA DEVI vs The State of Bihar

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50980 of 2023
CNR No. BRHC010678372023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-146 Year-2020 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Patna
======================================================
1. Rita Devi Wife Of Dhirendra Kumar Sharma Resident Of-Sri Krishna Road,
Gurudwara Gali, Munger,, P.S.-Kasim Bazar, District-Munger
2. Dhirendra Kumar Sharma @ Dhirendra Kumar Son Of Late Govind Sharma
Resident Of-Sri Krishna Road, Gurudwara Gali, Munger,, P.S.-Kasim Bazar,
District-Munger
3. Ayush Raj @ Ayush Sharma Son Of Dhirendra Kumar Sharma Resident Of-
Sri Krishna Road, Gurudwara Gali, Munger,, P.S.-Kasim Bazar, District-
Munger
4. Neha Kumari Wife Of Ayush Kumar Resident Of-Sri Krishna Road,
Gurudwara Gali, Munger,, P.S.-Kasim Bazar, District-Munger
5. Amrita Kumari Wife Of Sajjan Sharma Resident Of-Panchrukhi Itawa, P.S.-
Itawa, District-Munger
6. Sajjan Sharma Son Of Bhola Prasad Sharma Resident Of-Panchrukhi Itawa,
P.S.-Itawa, District-Munger
7. Akash @ Akash Kumar Sharma Son Of Dhirendra Kumar Sharma Resident
Of-Sri Krishna Road, Gurudwara Gali, Munger,, P.S.-Kasim Bazar, District-
Munger
8. Abhishek Kumar Son Of Dhirendra Kumar Sharma Resident Of-Sri Krishna
Road, Gurudwara Gali, Munger,, P.S.-Kasim Bazar, District-Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Neha Kumari Wife Of Amarjeet Kumar, Daughter Of Late Mohan Sharma
Resident Of-Ashiyana Indrapuri Colony, P.S.-Shastrinagar, District-Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : None
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-10-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50980 of 2023 dt.13-10-2026
2/5
2. Steps had been taken for issuance of notice to the
opposite party no. 2, but the earlier service report indicates that she
could not be traced out. This Court is proceeding to hear the
petitioners in the absence of the learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2 in the special circumstance of the case that the
opposite party no. 2 and her husband i.e. the son of petitioner nos.
1 and 2, have already filed a divorce case by mutual consent under
Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act numbered as
Matrimonial Case No. 86 of 2025 and the said case has already
been decreed by way of a Decree of Divorce.
3. The present application has been filed for quashing
of the order dated 26.08.2022 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Patna in connection with Mahila P.S. Case
No. 146 of 2020 whereby cognizance was taken under Sections
498(A), 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the D.P. Act).
4. The short facts of the case are that the informant got
married with co-accused Amarjeet Kumar on 09.07.2018. It is
alleged that the informant’s husband and in-laws started torturing
her for demand of Rs. 6,50,000/- and a Bullet motorcycle as
dowry. The accused persons continued to harass and threaten her
and ultimately they left her at her maternal house and blocked her

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50980 of 2023 dt.13-10-2026
3/5
number.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that the petitioners are all in-laws of the opposite party no. 2
including the mother-in-law, father-in-law etc. but not the husband.
The allegations reveal general and omnibus allegations against
them and they have been roped in as accused in the present case
only on account of their relationship with the husband of the
opposite party no. 2 and for the purposes of causing undue
harassment to the entire family including married sisters and
brothers. It has also been submitted that marriage of the opposite
party no. 2 took place with the husband in the year 2018 and since
July, 2019, she was residing at her maternal house and she decided
to institute the present FIR only on 24.12.2020, after due thought
and deliberation.
6. The subsequent development that has taken place in
the present case has been brought on record by way of a
supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners and in paragraph-3
of the same, a specific averment has been made with regard to
filing of a joint petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu
Marriage Act between the opposite party no. 2 and her husband
bearing Matrimonial Case No. 86 of 2025 and vide judgment and
decree dated 02.02.2026 and 09.03.2026 respectively, the Decree
of Divorce has been granted to the parties.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50980 of 2023 dt.13-10-2026
4/5
7. Annexure-P/2 to the supplementary affidavit is the
judgment and decree of petitioners and from perusal of paragraph-
7 of the aforesaid judgment, it becomes unmistakably clear that the
parties have settled all their claims and disputes amicably in
respect of past, present and future maintainance as also permanent
alimony. On the basis of such amicable settlement having been
entered between the parties, the petitioners have made a prayer for
quashing of the entire criminal prosecution against the petitioners.
8. Learned APP for the State is present and does not
raise any objection as the supplementary affidavit is self-speaking
and encloses the mutual consent divorce decree therein.
9. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the cases of
Mange Ram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. reported in
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1681 and Naushey Ali and Ors. vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78 that in
case of compromise between the parties to litigation, especially in
cases arising out of matrimonial relations, criminal proceedings
ought to be quashed for giving a peaceful quietus to ongoing
litigation. It is further held in the case of Kahkashan Kausar and
Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599
that continuance of criminal proceedings against these petitioners,
who are in-laws of the opposite party no. 2, would amount to
abuse of the process of the Court.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50980 of 2023 dt.13-10-2026
5/5
10. Taking into consideration the aforementioned
factual scenario of the petitioners being the in-laws of the opposite
party no. 2 with no specific allegations carved out against them,
coupled with the fact that the opposite party no. 2 and her husband
have already resolved their differences by way of filing of the
mutual consent divorce, this Court is of the considered view that
no useful or legitimate purpose would be served by keeping
criminal proceedings pending against the present petitioners. As
such, the impugned order dated 26.08.2022 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna in connection with Mahila
P.S. Case No. 146 of 2020 and all prosecutions arising therefrom
as regards these petitioners, stands quashed.
11. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.


(Soni Shrivastava, J)
priyanka/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 16.10.2026
Transmission Date 16.10.2026