Patna High Court
Nazma Khatoon @ Nazni Khatoon and OrsversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
The order taking cognizance of the offences is quashed as its continuance would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
Summary
The petitioners filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash an order of the Judicial Magistrate of Begusarai that had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 323 and 379 of the IPC. The dispute arose because petitioner No.1, Nazma Khatoon, had earlier lodged a complaint under Section 498A against her husband (OP No.2) and his family, and the husband retaliated with the present complaint. The parties later reached a compromise, restored their marital relationship, and the earlier 498A case was disposed with the husband’s acquittal. The State did not oppose the petition, acknowledging the restored relations. The Court held that continuing the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of process and ordered the quashing of the cognizance order, thereby disposing of the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the criminal proceedings initiated under the order of cognizance for offences under Sections 323 and 379 IPC can be continued after the parties have reached a compromise and restored relations, invoking Section 482 CrPC to quash the order.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 379, 498A
Subjects
- Criminal Procedure
- Section 482 CrPC
- Quash of proceedings
- Compromise
- Abuse of process
- IPC 323
- IPC 379
- IPC 498A
- Restoration of conjugal relations
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13529 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3170 Year-2015 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE
District- Begusarai
======================================================
1. Nazma Khatoon @ Nazni Khatoon Daughter of Md. Nayeemuddin
2. Md. Nayeem @ Nayeemuddin, Son of Abdul Ajib
3. Mustari @ Mustari Khatoon, wife of Nayeemuddin
4. Md. Shahadat Son of Nayeemuddin @ Md Nadiuddin
5. Md. Bashir, Son of Late Md. Ali
6. Md. Rustam, Son of Late Md. Ghani All resident of Village- Dumri-Biro,
P.S.- Muffasil, District- Begusarai.
7. Md. Mukhtar Alam @ Md. Mukhtar Rayeen, Son of Late Md. Jagir
8. Abdul Sattar @ Buchchu, Son of Late Md. Zamir, Both resident of
Phulwaria-2, Ward No.2, P.S.- Phulwaria, District- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar
2. Abdul Jabbar Son of Late Md. Salamat Miyan, Resident of Phulwaria, Ward
No.-2, P.S.- Phulwaria, District- Begusarai.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Md. Fahimuddin, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nand Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
6 13-02-2026 At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks
permission to withdraw this application in respect of petitioner
no.6, Md. Rustam on account of his death.
2. Permission as sought above is granted, and the instant
application stands dismissed as withdrawn, being infructuous with
respect to petitioner no. 6. In respect of the other petitioners, the
instant application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (in short, “Cr.P.C.”), challenging the order
dated 03.02.2016 passed in Complaint Case No. 3170C of 2015 by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13529 of 2016(6) dt.13-02-2026
2/3
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, whereby cognizance of
the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 379 of the Indian
Penal Code (in short, “IPC”) has been taken. In the instant
application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the said
order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner no. 1 is the wife of O.P. no. 2. Petitioner no. 1 had filed
Complaint Case No. 2892C of 2015 alleging cruelty under Section
498A of the IPC against her husband (O.P. no. 2 herein) and her
other in-laws. In retaliation, O.P. no. 2 filed the complaint in which
the impugned order was passed. However, due to efforts made by
well-wishers, both parties entered into a compromise and decided
to have their cases disposed of in terms of the said compromise.
Accordingly, the case filed by petitioner no. 1 has been disposed
of, resulting in the acquittal of O.P. no. 2 and others. A copy of the
compromise petition has been filed before this Court by way of a
supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel further submits that the
judgment passed in Complaint Case No. 2892C of 2015, which is
being produced before this Court, clearly shows that on account of
restoration of conjugal relations between petitioner no. 1 and O.P.
no. 2, the said complaint case was decided. It is lastly submitted
that the petitioners’ case could not be proceeded with earlier on
account of the proceedings having been stayed by this Court.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13529 of 2016(6) dt.13-02-2026
3/3
4. No one appears on behalf of O.P. no. 2.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State does not oppose
the prayer made by the petitioners in the present application in the
light of the said compromise, as good relations have been restored
between petitioner no. 1 and O.P. no. 2.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking
into account the fact that cordial relations have been restored in
between petitioner no. 1 and O.P. no. 2, the continuance of the
criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners pursuant to
the cognizance order would amount to an abuse of the process of
the Court and would cause unnecessary harassment to the
petitioners. Accordingly, the impugned order taking cognizance of
the alleged offences against the petitioners, as well as the
subsequent criminal proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, are
hereby set aside/quashed. Accordingly, the instant petition stands
disposed of.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
BKS/-
U T
Checking your session…