Patna High Court
Dev Kumar TiwariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANJAY KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The appeal is allowed and the criminal proceedings are quashed on account of the parties’ compromise.
Summary
The informant Kanchan Devi alleged that her husband mortgaged her motorcycle to the appellants for Rs 5,000 and later demanded Rs 40,000, leading to an FIR under IPC sections 420, 504, 506 and SC/ST Act section 3(i)(r)(s). The appellants’ discharge application under CrPC section 227 was rejected, and they appealed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act. During the appeal, the parties reached a settlement: the appellants returned the motorcycle and Rs 5,000 to the informant. The informant then expressed no further grievance and consented to the quashing of the criminal proceedings. Relying on Supreme Court guidelines in Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the High Court held that continuing prosecution after a genuine compromise would be futile and oppressive, and therefore quashed the order of the lower court and the proceedings. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings under IPC 420, 504, 506 and SC/ST Act 3(i)(r)(s) can be continued after a settlement between the parties.
- Whether the High Court can quash the proceedings under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act on the basis of compromise.
- Applicability of the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh to the present case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 227
- Indian Penal Code — s. 420, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14A(2), 3(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- compromise
- quash of criminal proceedings
- IPC 420
- IPC 504
- IPC 506
- discharge application
- settlement
- oppression
- prejudice
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.454 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1001 Year-2020 Thana- ARA NAWADA District- Bhojpur
======================================================
1. Dev Kumar Tiwari Son of Jiwanand Tiwari Resident of Village- Sar Siwan,
P.S.- Ara Muffasil, Dist.- Bhojpur
2. Dharmesh Kumar Tiwari @ Dharmesh Tiwari Son of Jiwanand Tiwari
Resident of Village- Sar Siwan, P.S.- Ara Muffasil, Dist.- Bhojpur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kanchan Devi Wife of Abhimanyu Kumar Resident of Village- Anaith, P.S.-
Ara Nawada, Distt.- Bhojpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Gopal Govind Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Swetank, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
14 19-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel
for the informant.
2. The instant appeal under Section 14A(2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the order dated
03.12.2024 passed by the learned District and Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Bhojpur at Ara in SC/ST Case No. 324 of
2020, arising out of Nawada P.S. Case No. 1001 of 2020 under
sections 420, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
3(i)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.454 of 2025(14) dt.19-02-2026
2/5
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby discharge application
under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the
appellants has been rejected and appellants has been directed to
face trial.
3. Brief facts of the case, which are required to be stated
are that informant lodged F.I.R. stating inter-alia that her
husband is habitual to smoke heroin. He used to giveaway
household goods at a low rate in the locality. In the same
sequence, the motorcycle No. 03W554, which she had got from
her maternal home was mortgaged by her husband to the
appellants for Rs. 5000/-. On making request for return of her
motorcycle, they are abusing and demanding Rs.40,000/-
4. On 30.01.2026 and 04.02.2026 following orders were
passed by this Court :
“30.01.2026: On the matter being taken up Mr.
Satish Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate has put his
appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 3. He
prays for and is allowed three days’ time to seek
instruction with regard to settlement of dispute.
2. Let this matter be listed on 03.02.2026
retaining its position.”
“04.02.2026: Pursuant to order dated 30.01.2026,
Mr Satish Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2, upon
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.454 of 2025(14) dt.19-02-2026
3/5
instruction from his client submits that in case the
motorcycle in question and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is
returned by the appellants to the respondent no. 2,
he has no objection in case relief as sought for by
the appellants by means of this criminal appeal is
allowed.
2. In response, learned counsel for the
appellants submits that the appellants are ready to
accept the offer of the respondent no. 2. He further
submits that the motorcycle in question and a sum
of Rs. 5,000/- shall be handed over to the
respondent no. 2 in presence of learned counsel for
the parties on 06.02.2026 between 10:30 to 11:30
A.M.
3. Let this matter be re-notified on
16.02.2026.”
5. Today on the matter being taken up, learned counsel for
the appellants submits that pursuant to order of this Court dated
04.02.2026, the appellants has returned the motorcycle in
question to the respondent no. 2 and also gave a sum of Rs.
5,000/- in cash as directed in the order dated 04.02.2026. So far
as papers of motorcycle in question is concerned, he handed
over the original owner book, transfer letter with signature of
appellant no.1, photocopy of Aadhar Card and one photograph
of the appellant no.1, (who is owner of the vehicle and brother
of appellant no. 2) to the counsel for the informant/respondent
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.454 of 2025(14) dt.19-02-2026
4/5
no. 2 during course of hearing of this case.
6. On receiving the said documents learned counsel for
respondent no. 2 submits that now informant has no grievance
against the appellants and in case the impugned order dated
03.12.2024 and further criminal proceedings of this case arising
out of Nawada P.S. Case No. 1001 of 2020 as noted above is
quashed by this Court, informant has no objection.
7. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I
find that after compromise/settlement arrived at between the
parties in the present case, the chance of ultimate conviction is
bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by
allowing a criminal prosecution against the appellants to
continue, as the same would be futile exercise and a sheer
wastage of precious time of the Court. The continuation of a
criminal proceedings after compromise would cause oppression
and prejudice to the parties concerned. If the parties concerned
wants to bury the hatchet and are willing to move on in personal
dispute on the basis of compromise, they may be allowed to
compound the offences in terms of settlement in the light of
dictum and guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case
of Ramawatar vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2021 Supreme
Court 5228.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.454 of 2025(14) dt.19-02-2026
5/5
8. In view of the above, the order dated 03.12.2024
passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Bhojpur at Ara in SC/ST Case No. 324 of 2020 and further
proceedings of the aforesaid case against the appellant is
quashed in terms of compromise as mentioned above.
9. The appeal stands allowed.
(Sanjay Kumar Singh, J)
Raj Ranjan/-
U
Checking your session…