Patna High Court

GANESH YADAVversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 3 February 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: SANDEEP KUMAR

Holding

The court directed the Special Judge to consider the compromise petition and pass an appropriate order, effectively allowing the compromise to be examined.

Summary

The appellants, four Yadav brothers, were charged under IPC sections 304, 201, 308, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly killing an informant's husband at a marriage ceremony. They filed an application seeking to set aside the Additional Sessions Judge's order taking cognizance of the offences, contending that the parties had settled the dispute and filed a compromise petition. The court heard counsel for the appellants and the State, noting that the respondent wife had not appeared despite proper service. The bench directed the Special Judge to consider the compromise petition and pass an appropriate order within a month, thereby disposing of the application. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the matter was left for the Special Judge to resolve in accordance with law.

Issues considered

Whether the order taking cognizance of offences under IPC, Arms Act and SC/ST (POA) Act can be set aside on the ground of a compromise between parties.
Whether a compromise petition is permissible in the offences alleged (IPC sections 304, 201, 308, Arms Act, SC/ST (POA) Act).
Whether the Special Judge should be directed to consider the compromise petition and pass an order.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 304, 308
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(2)(va)

Subjects

Criminal law
Compromise petition
IPC
Arms Act
SC/ST (POA) Act
Cognizance
Appeal
Settlement

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4217 of 2022
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-48 Year-2013 Thana- BHEJA District- Madhubani
                 ======================================================
           1.     GANESH YADAV Son of Rameshwar Yadav R/O Village - Parsauni, P.S.-
                  Bheja, District - Madhubani
           2.    Laxmi Yadav Son of Rameshwar Yadav R/O Village - Parsauni, P.S.- Bheja,
                 District - Madhubani
           3.    Maharaj Yadav Son of Rameshwar Yadav R/O Village - Parsauni, P.S.-
                 Bheja, District - Madhubani
           4.    Vidyanand Yadav Son of Upendra Yadav R/O Village - Parsauni, P.S.- Bheja,
                 District - Madhubani

                                                                                   ... ... Appellant/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Tiliya Devi Wife of Late Sanjay Saday Resident of Village - Godwa, P.S.-
                 Supaul, District - Madhubani.

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s     :        Mr.Akash Chaturvedi, Advocate
                 For the State           :        Mr.Binay Krishna, Spl.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

7   03-02-2026                     Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned

                   counsel for the State.

                                2. None appears for respondent no. 2, despite valid

                   service of notice.

                                3. This application has been filed for setting aside the

                   order dated 03.01.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge

                   1st-cum- Special Judge, Madhubani in Bheja P.S. Case No.

                   48/2013 by which learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st-cum-

                   Special Judge has taken cognizance under Sections 304, 201,
              Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4217 of 2022(7) dt.03-02-2026
                                                           2/2




                        308 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act

                        read with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989

                        against all the appellants.

                                     4. As per the prosecution case, appellants are alleged

                        to have killed informant’s husband at a marriage ceremony.

                                     5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

                        parties have settled their dispute and filed the compromise

                        petition in the court of Special Judge.

                                     6. In these circumstances, this appeal stands disposed

                        of with a direction to the Special Judge to consider the consider

                        the compromise petition and pass an appropriate order in

                        accordance with law preferably within one month of

                        communication of this Order.

                                     7. This application stands disposed of.



                                                   (Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-

U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…