Patna High Court
DURGA PRASADversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court held that even non‑compoundable offences may be quashed under the inherent powers of the court under Section 482 CrPC when the dispute has been amicably settled.
Summary
Durga Prasad filed an application to quash the order dated 20‑08‑2020 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate‑XIV, Patna, which had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The parties had resolved the commercial dispute through mediation, culminating in a settlement agreement dated 17‑10‑2025 where the petitioner agreed to pay Rs.6,50,000 to the opposite party No.2, who raised no objection to quashing. The court examined the inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash criminal proceedings even for non‑compoundable offences when the dispute is settled. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Naushey Ali v. State of U.P., Mange Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and Suresh C. Singal & Ors. v. State of Gujarat), the court held that continuation of the trial would be futile and contrary to the ends of justice. Consequently, the order of the magistrate was quashed and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 406, 420 IPC and 138 NI Act can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when the parties have reached a settlement.
- Whether non‑compoundable offences may be quashed on the basis of an amicable settlement between victim and offender.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- quash
- Section 482 CrPC
- non‑compoundable offence
- settlement
- mediation
- criminal procedure
- IPC 406
- IPC 420
- NI Act 138
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10653 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2020 Thana- GANDHIMAIDAN District- Patna
======================================================
DURGA PRASAD Son of Siyalal Prasad Resident of Nakash Devi Asthan,
P.S.- Malsalami, District - Patna. (Office Address - Shree Radhe Krishan
Trading, Shitla Mata Mandir Road, P.S.- Agamkuan, District - Patna.)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ashutosh Tekriwal Son of Anjan Kumar Tekriwal Resident of Sharda Sadan,
Kankarbagh, P.S.- Kankarbagh, District - Patna. (Present Address - M/s. Shri
Radhe Shyam Trading Company, Narayani Bhawan, Jamal Road, P.S.-
Gandhi Maidan, Patna).
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, Advocate
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Mishra, Sr. Advocate
Ms. N. Jaisal, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
13 08-01-2026 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned APP for the State and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar
Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
opposite party no.2.
2. The instant application has been filed for quashing
of order dated 20.08.2020 passed by the learned Addl. Chief
Judicial Magistrate-XIV, Patna, whereby and whereunder the
learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner in
connection with Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 83 of 2020,
registered for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10653 of 2021(13) dt.08-01-2026
2/4
and Section 138 of N.I. Act
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
earlier vide order dated 28.07.2025, the matter was sent to the
Patna High Court, Mediation Center for reaching amicable
settlement between the parties as the case involved issue of
dispute over commercial transactions and a report of the
Mediation Center is available on the record.
4. Upon mediation, a memorandum of agreement was
reached between the parties in the Mediation Proceeding
No.1104 of 2025 dated 17.10.2025 and a perusal of the same
would indicate that parties have resolved their differences and
the matter has been settled once and for all upon payment of
amount of Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand
Only) by the petitioner to the opposite party no.2.
5. Learned Senior counsel for the opposite party no.2
does not raise any objection to the criminal proceedings being
quashed.
6. The issue with regard to quashing of criminal
proceedings with respect to offences which are private in nature
and do not have serious impact on society, wherein the
settlement/compromise has been reached between the victim
and the offender, has been settled by various judicial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10653 of 2021(13) dt.08-01-2026
3/4
pronouncements to the extent that even non-compoundable
offence can be quashed by exercising the power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab
reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, it had been held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court that if a dispute between the offender and the
victim has been settled, although the offences are not
compoundable, the same may be quashed by the High Court
within the framework of inherent power upon coming to finding
that continuation of such criminal proceedings would be an
exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the
dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is
restored. The guiding fact is securing the ends of justice and by
not quashing such criminal proceedings, justice itself shall be
casuality and the ends of justice shall be defeated.
7. The above mentioned legal position has been
reiterated in the case of Naushey Ali vs. State of U.P., reported
in (2025) 4 SCC 78 wherein it has been observed that when the
parties have amicably resolved the dispute, proceeding with the
trial would be futile and the ends of justice require that the
settlement be given effect to by quashing the proceedings. It
would be a grave abuse of process of Court particularly when
the dispute is settled and resolved.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10653 of 2021(13) dt.08-01-2026
4/4
8. In a very recent judgment in the case of Mange
Ram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. [2025 INSC 962]
and also in case of Suresh C. Singal & Ors. Vs. State of
Gujarat & Ors. (Cr. Appeal No. 3862 of 2024), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed that criminal proceedings in cases
involving an overwhelmingly civil character, arising out of a
purely private transaction, where the parties have amicably
resolved their dispute, ought not to be allowed to continue.
9. Thus, taking into consideration the fact that the
matter has been settled between the parties and in view of the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred, the
application is allowed and order dated 20.08.2020 passed by the
learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-XIV, Patna in
connection with Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 83 of 2020, are
hereby quashed.
10. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-
U T
Checking your session…