Patna High Court

Rakesh KumarversusState Of Bihar and Anr

Decided: 19 February 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

Holding

The petition is disposed of as infructuous due to the parties' compromise.

Summary

The petitioner Rakesh Kumar filed a petition under Article 226 seeking to quash the order dated 05.05.2015 wherein the Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, took cognizance under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in Complaint Case No.1468 of 2013. The petitioner claimed that both parties had reached a compromise, rendering the criminal proceedings infructuous. The State of Bihar, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, raised no objection to the compromise. The Court examined whether a compromise could justify the quashing of the cognizance order. Finding that the compromise made the continuation of the case unnecessary, the Court disposed of the petition as infructuous. Consequently, the criminal proceedings were effectively terminated.

Issues considered

Whether a petition for quashing a cognizance order under Section 420 IPC and Section 138 NI Act can be entertained when the parties have compromised, rendering the case infructuous

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 420
Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138

Subjects

compromise
quash order
infructuous
criminal procedure
Section 420 IPC
Section 138 NI Act

Judgment

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18609 of 2018
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1468 Year-2013 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
                                                           Patna
                  ======================================================
                  Rakesh Kumar son of Devendra Prasad Sharma @ Devendra Prasad Verma
                  R/o C/o Ramadhar Sharma, Saidpur, Mahadeo Ashram, P.S. Kadam Kuan,
                  District – Patna.                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                Versus
            1.     The State of Bihar
            2.     Md. Mumtaz Ali son of Anwar Mahrun R/o - Kumhrar, P.S. - Agam Kuan,
                   District - Patna.
                                                                 ... ... Opposite Party/s
                  ======================================================
                  Appearance :
                  For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate
                  For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP
                  ======================================================
                  CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
                                        ORAL ORDER

6    19-02-2026                  This petition has been filed for quashing of order

                    dated 05.05.2015 taking cognizance by learned J.M., Patna City

                    under Section 420 of I.P.C. and Section 138 of N.I. Act in

                    connection with Complaint Case No.1468 of 2013.

                                 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both

                    parties have compromised the said case, therefore, this case may

                    be disposed of as it has now become infructuous.

                                 3. Learned APP for the State has no objection to this

                    prayer of the petitioner.

                                 4. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of as

                    having become infructuous.


                                               (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Harish/-
U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…