Patna High Court
Panchdeo PandeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The complaint and the criminal proceedings under sections 498A/34 IPC and Section 3 D.P. Act are quashed.
Summary
The petitioners filed applications seeking quash of the order dated 13‑08‑2024 that had taken cognizance of offences under IPC sections 498A and 34 and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They produced a compromise petition and a supplementary affidavit showing that the matrimonial relationship between Panchdeo Pandey and his wife, the complainant, had been restored. Both sides admitted the compromise. Relying on Supreme Court pronouncements that criminal matters of a predominantly civil or matrimonial nature should be dismissed when the parties settle, the Court held that the complaint and the related criminal proceedings were futile. Consequently, the Court quashed the complaint case and all proceedings arising therefrom. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings under IPC sections 498A/34 and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act can be quashed on the ground of a mutual compromise and restoration of the matrimonial relationship.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 498A
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- quash
- compromise
- matrimonial dispute
- Section 498A
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- compoundable offence
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9172 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1848 Year-2023 Thana- BHOJPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Bhojpur
======================================================
1. Vivek Kumar Pandey S/o- Jagarnath Pandey @ Jagannath Pandey Village-
Dharampura PS-Ara Muffasil District- Bhojpur
2. Jagarnath Pandey @ Jagannath Pandey S/o- Late Shyam Bihari Pandey
Village- Dharampura PS-Ara Muffasil District- Bhojpur
3. Meera Devi @ Mira Devi W/o- Jagarnath Pandey @ Jagannath Pandey
Village- Dharampura PS-Ara Muffasil District- Bhojpur
4. Jyoti Devi W/o- Vivek Kumar Pandey Village- Dharampura PS-Ara Muffasil
District- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kumari Uma Alias Uma Devi Late Lalan Ojha Mohalla South OF Jail
Khetari Mohalla Nehru Nagar PS Ara Town District Bhojpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 23371 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1848 Year-2023 Thana- BHOJPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Panchdeo Pandey Son of Jagarnath Pandey @ Jagannath Pandey Village-
Dharmpura PS- Ara Muffasil District -Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kumari Uma @ Uma Devi wife of Panchdeo Pandey Mohalla- South OF
Jail Khetari Mohalla Nehru Nagar, PS -Ara Town, District -Bhojpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 9172 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bhaskar Shankar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Uday Chand Prasad, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 23371 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bhaskar Shankar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Arun Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9172 of 2025(3) dt.05-02-2026
2/4
ORAL ORDER
3 05-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing
the order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M,
Bhojpur at Ara in Complaint Case No. 1848 of 2023 whereby
cognizance has been taken against him under Section(s)
498(A)/34 of the I.P.C. and under Section ¾ of the D.P. Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he
has brought on record the compromise petition entered between
the parties by supplementary affidavit. He further submits that
in view of the compromise, the matrimonial relationship
between the petitioner in Cr.Misc. No. 23371 of 2025, namely,
Panchdeo Pandey and the complainant/O.P. No. 2 has been
restored. It has next been submitted that in view of such
settlement and the allegations being in the nature of private
differences between the husband and the wife, therefore, the
compromise may be accepted and the criminal proceedings may
be quashed.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.
No. 2 does not dispute the factum of compromise entered
between the parties and has also submitted that the matrimonial
relationship between the petitioner in Cr.Misc. No. 23371 of
2025, namely, Panchdeo Pandey and his wife i.e. the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9172 of 2025(3) dt.05-02-2026
3/4
complainant has been restored.
5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and taking into account the fact that the parties have
compromised and in view of the settled law especially the
observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Narinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Anr reported
in (2014) 6 SCC 466, paragraph -29.4 of the same reads as under:
“29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases
having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or
arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes
should be quashed when the parties have resolved their
entire disputes among themselves.”
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Naushey Ali and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78 has observed that in a case where
the parties have amicably settled their dispute the proceeding
with the trial would be futile and it would be a grave abuse of
process of law if the proceedings are not quashed.
7. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements
and settled principle of law, the Complaint Case No. 1848 of
2023 for the offences under sections 498(A)/34 of the I.P.C. and
under Section ¾ of the D.P. Act. and the criminal proceedings
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9172 of 2025(3) dt.05-02-2026
4/4
arisen out of the same are quashed.
8. Accordingly, the present application stands
allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
U
Checking your session…