Patna High Court
Anuj GuptaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The FIR is quashed as the parties have settled the dispute and the offences are compoundable, warranting the exercise of the Court's power under Section 482 CrPC.
Summary
The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 54 of 2024 registered at Jamui Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 379 and 411 IPC. The parties had settled the dispute amicably without coercion and executed a settlement agreement, and the petitioners moved the High Court for relief. The learned counsel relied on Supreme Court judgment (2014 SCC 466) emphasizing that the timing of settlement is crucial when exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC. The Court noted that the offences are compoundable and the matter was still at the investigation stage, allowing benevolent exercise of its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR in the interest of justice.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court may quash an FIR under Section 482 CrPC when the parties have reached a settlement and the offences are compoundable.
- Whether the timing of the settlement (post‑FIR but pre‑charge‑sheet) permits the Court to exercise its inherent power to dismiss the criminal proceeding.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 379, 406, 411, 420
Subjects
- quash
- FIR
- settlement
- compoundable offence
- Section 482 CrPC
- IPC Sections 406, 420, 379, 411
- high court jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17282 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2024 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui
======================================================
1. Anuj Gupta S/o Sh. Rajeev Gupta R/o House No. 602, Sector 6, Panchkula,
P.S. - Panchkula, P.S. - Sector 5, Panchkula, District - Panchkula, Haryana
2. Sanjeev Aggarwal S/o Sh. Vinod Aggarwal R/o House No. 874, P.S. - Sector
7, Panchkula, District - Panchkula, Haryana
3. Ravi Mann S/o Sh. Bal Raj R/o Prahladpur Bangar, Sector 31, Rohini, New
Delhi, P.S. - Shahbad Dairy, Dist. - Delhi - 110042
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pankaj Kumar S/o Rameshwar Prasad Singh Director, M/s Universal Agro
Corporation Limited, Vill - Simha, P.S. - Matihani, Dist. - Begusarai,
registered office at Shashi Palace, Ramkrishan Nagar, Hemra Road, Ward
No. 19, Begusarai, Bihar - 851101
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Shrishti Singh, Advocate
Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Saurabh Sundar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Harendra Prasad, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rohit Raj, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 14-05-2026 Heard Ms. Shrishti Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Harendra Prasad, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. Rohit Raj, learned
counsel for Opposite Party No.2.
2. This application has been filed for quashing of the
FIR bearing Jamui P.S. Case No. 54 of 2024 dated 27.01.2024
registered for the offences against the petitioners under Sections
406, 420, 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17282 of 2024(3) dt.14-05-2026
2/3
3. Learned counsels have jointly submitted that the
parties have settled their dispute outside the Court without
threat, coercion or promise and a settlement agreement has been
arrived at between the parties and as per the settlement
agreement, they have decided that the parties will move the
Hon’ble High Court for quashing of the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon
the judgment reported in 2014 volume 6 Supreme Court
Cases 466 and draws the attention of the Court towards para
29.7 which is quoted hereinbelow:-
“29.7. While deciding whether to
exercise its power under Section 482 of the
Code or not, timings of settlement play a
crucial role. Those cases where the
settlement is arrived at immediately after the
alleged commission of offence and the
matter is still under investigation, the High
Court may be liberal in accepting the
settlement to quash the criminal
proceedings/ investigation. It is because of
the reason that at this stage the investigation
is still on and even the charge-sheet has not
been filed. Likewise, those cases where the
charge is framed but the evidence is yet to
start or the evidence is still at infancy stage,
the High Court can show benevolence in
exercising its powers favourably, but after
prima facie assessment of the circumstances/
material mentioned above. On the other
hand, where the prosecution evidence is
almost complete or after the conclusion of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17282 of 2024(3) dt.14-05-2026
3/3
the evidence the matter is at the stage of
argument, normally the High Court should
refrain from exercising its power under
Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the
trial court would be in a position to decide
the case finally on merits and to come to a
conclusion as to whether the offence under
Section 307 IPC is committed or not.
Similarly, in those cases where the
conviction is already recorded by the trial
court and the matter is at the appellate stage
before the High Court, mere compromise
between the parties would not be a ground to
accept the same resulting in acquittal of the
offender who has already been convicted by
the trial court. Here charge is proved under
Section 307 IPC and conviction is already
recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore,
there is no question of sparing a convict
found guilty of such a crime.”
5. In view of settlement between the parties and the
offences being compoundable one, in the interest of justice FIR
bearing Jamui P.S. Case No. 54 of 2024 dated 27.01.2024, is
hereby quashed.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
shivam/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.