Ratnesh Kumar Singh @ Ratnesh Kumar & Anr. vs State Of Bihar & Anr.

Date : 25-08-2026 Heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2.

The petitioners have filed this application for quashing of the order dated 21.03.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Patna in connection with Hawai Adda P.S. Case No. 176 of 2016 & G.R. No. 7259 A/2016, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, the informant alleged that his daughter was married to the co-accused, Nilesh Kumar three years back in the year 2015 and soon thereafter her husband, brother-in-law (Bhaisur) and sister-in-law started demanding money for opening a medicine company and house also. Thereafter, on the alleged date of occurrence on 31.10.2016, the petitioner no.1 made a telephonic call that the informant’s daughter is seriously ill and had a massive heart attack and was taken to Paras Hospital, where she died.

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case, although the petitioners have been described as brother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of the deceased, but, in fact, they are distantly related and happens to be the cousin brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased. Moreover, it has been submitted, referring to Annexure-6, wherein the Medico Legal Case of the deceased has been discussed, that, and as per the Medico Legal Case, the deceased was brought by her husband in gasping condition with history of episode of vomiting 30 minutes back, CPR was immediately started and after giving CPR for about 45 minutes, the patient could not be recovered and despite all possible effective measures, the patient could not be revived and the deceased died at 04:55 A.M. on 31.10.2016, when the deceased was initially brought on 31.10.2016 at 04:10 A.M.

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has further submitted, referring to the post-mortem report, that the injuries have been found on the body of the deceased was contusion of soft tissue of left lateral chest lower part in an area of 10cm x 84cm with laceration of spleen vascular, while there was presence of blood and blood clot about 1.5 litre in abdominal cavity and there was fracture of sternum at third rib level.

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has further submitted, referring to the Medico Legal Journal, that such injuries was caused while providing CPR to the patient, when the Medico Legal Journal further states that women may be more likely to have broken ribs after CPR, the researchers wrote in the journal resuscitation, because they are more likely to have the bone-thinning disease osteoporosis. It has further been submitted that the Medico Legal Journal has specifically stated that chest wall injury is the most common complication related to CPR, that is why rib and sternum fractures are frequently observed in such cases and the same is the position here, when the deceased was given CPR for continuously for long time, the injuries were found on her body, whereas the viscera was preserved and the viscera report states that there was no Metallic, Alkaloidal, Glycosidal, Pesticidal and volatile poison could be detected in the contents of glass jar.

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are distantly related and, referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. as reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741, particularly paragraph 18 to 25 thereof, it has been submitted that there is a growing tendency to falsely implicate in cases out of matrimonial dispute as regards the relatives of the husband of the victim. It has further been submitted, referring to the judgment of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a large number of family members are shown in the FIR as an accused by casually mentioning their names and contents do not evolve their active involvement and, as such, taking of cognizance against them was not justified.

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has also submitted that the ingredients of Section 304B are not made out. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the death was natural, the deceased was brought to the best hospital of City to save the life of the deceased, instant CPR was given and all the efforts were made to save her life, but she could not survive and there was no such bodily injury so as to gather inference that she was done to death and there are no material to suggest that she was tortured soon before death in relation to demand of dowry.

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has further submitted that cruelty has been defined in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, wherein any wilful conduct, which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman or harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand in the case of dowry death, and, as provided under Section 304B of the IPC, it has been submitted that the ingredients to satisfy the commission of the offence is that soon before the death, the victim was subjected to cruelty and none of the ingredients of cruelty as defined in Section 498A of the IPC and also provided under Section 304B of the IPC is made out against the petitioners.

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, drawing the attention of the Court to the impugned order taking cognizance, has submitted that from a bare perusal of the same, it would transpire that a format has been drawn, which does not have any legitimacy of the criminal jurisprudence as no Criminal Code prescribes such format. He has further submitted that the said format contains some narrations and also contained several blank columns/spaces, for being filled in subsequently, with regard to name/s of the accused, the charge-sheet number, date of charge-sheet offence and the names of the accused. It has further been submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that it shows the pre-determination of the learned court below in proceeding with the matter in a manner alien to the known principles of criminal law and the learned court below has confined its consideration/appreciation of the facts of the case to fit in to the said format in a mechanical manner and has not properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case prior to passing the impugned order, which requires interference by this Court.

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has further submitted that the present prosecution against the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of the Court, as the same is vexatious and malicious in nature and it also comes under Category No.7, as disccused in paragraph 102 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners and has submitted that after the conclusion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners and cognizance came to be taken against them and there are prima-facie materials to constitute offence in which cognizance has been taken.

Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has also relied upon a judgment of Taramani Parakh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh as reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260 and has submitted the question, whether the deceased has, in fact, been harassed and treated with cruelty is a matter of trial, but at this stage, it cannot be said that no case is made out. It has further been submitted that the order taking cognizance is good in law and on facts both and should not be interfered with and the petitioners may be directed to face the trial.

Heard the parties and perused the records.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the facts that the petitioners are cousin brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased, there appears to be general, vague and casual allegations against them, the Medico Legal Case of the deceased, the post-mortem report as well as viscera report of the deceased, the order taking cognizance, being a typed format with several blank columns with only names, charge-sheet number and offence, consideration of case diary, charge-sheet, police papers have been inserted therein, the same shows non-application of judicial mind and the same has been passed in a mechanical manner. Resultantly, the order taking cognizance dated 21.03.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Patna, in connection with Hawai Adda P.S. Case No. 176 of 2016 & G.R. No. 7259 A/2016, is hereby quashed with respect to petitioners only, however, further proceedings with respect to co-accused, Nilesh Kumar may continue.

The application stands allowed.