Patna High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Suspended Judge In Dowry Death Case, Orders CBI Probe

The Patna High Court recently declined to quash the criminal case filed against a suspended judicial officer in the cadre of Bihar Judicial Service regarding the alleged dowry death of his wife, observing that there exist prima facie materials pointing to the harassment and cruelty related to dowry demands.

The Court also ordered that the investigation in the case be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) citing the 'very technical nature' of the case.

The case, presided over by Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, held, “I have already held that the death was not caused by any burn. There was also no bodily injury on the person of the deceased. On the other hand, medical documents suggest conclusively that death of the deceased was caused due to her sufferings and not otherwise than normal circumstances.”

“This Court finds that police did not register any case on the basis of fard beyan of Respondent No. 6 for the offence punishable under 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Till date, no prayer has been made by the Investigating Officer for adding the said penal provisions ,” Justice Chaudhuri added.

The ruling was delivered in a Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case whereby the Pratik Shail sought quashing of the FIR registered under Sections 304B and 34 of the IPC. The FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased wife of the petitioner, alleging that his daughter was subjected to continuous mental and physical harassment for dowry, leading to her death within 15 months of marriage.

It was alleged that she had previously been forcibly removed by her paternal family from Universal Emergency Hospital, where she was undergoing treatment, and was in a critical condition. The informant father, also alleged the harassment arose from an unpaid dowry demand of ₹20,00,000, and alleged a broader demand totaling ₹50,00,000, part of which had been fulfilled in the form of a car and gold ornaments.

The Court pointed out that there were contradictions with regard to timings of ultra sonography and ADA test and medical examination of the patient by Dr. Astik, who initially treated the deceased.

The Court noted in its judgement, “From the medical advise issued by Dr. Astik … it is clearly found that the deceased was suffering from Amenorrhea and intermittent vomiting for two months which are indicative of abdominal tuberculosis. No medical paper has been filed by the petitioner to show that he took proper care of the disease from which his wife was suffering during the said two months before being medically examined by Dr. Astik.”

“Had she been medically treated at the outset of the onset of Amenorrhea and intermittent vomiting, her death could have been avoided. This prima facie shows negligence on the part of the petitioner and his family members, for which he may be held liable for committing offence under Section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code,” the Court opined.

The Court said it was for the Investigating Officer to investigate as to whether rash and negligent act was preceded with the knowledge that such act was likely to cause death. In such a case, the Court said, Section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code will be applicable, and if rash and negligence act is preceded by real intention on the part of the wrong doer to cause death, Section 302 of the I.P.C. will be applicable.

The Court said that the petitioner failed to produce any medical document to show that he took proper care and measures at least two months after the death of his wife, when she complained of Amenorrhea with intermittent vomiting, which was suggestive of gross negligence on the part of the petitioner.

“If during investigation it is found that the negligence by the petitioner was attributed with the knowledge of the consequence, he may be fastened with culpability of homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 part II,” the Court held and in view of this finding, the Court said that it had no other alternative but to hold that in the instant case, the FIR couldn't have been quashed.

Thus, the Court directed that as the case involved application of penal provision on the basis of proper appreciation of medical documents and the failure on the part of the State Police, even to include Section 498A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, coupled with the fact that as a Judicial Magistrate, “the petitioner has every scope to influence investigation conducted by the State Police, in connection with Alam Ganj P. S. Case No. 747 of 2023, this Court is of the opinion that investigation of this case should be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation.”

“The petitioner is directed to immediately surrender before the learned A.C.J.M.-VI, Patna within three days from the date of this order, failing which non- bailable warrant issued against the petitioner shall be executed,” the Court further directed.

The Court said permitted the CBI to add Section 304A and alternatively 304 part II with 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner and other accused persons in connection with the criminal case.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Pratik Shail @ Pratik Sail v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 38

Click Here To Read Judgement