Patna High Court
Sandeep Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The High Court may quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC even for non‑compoundable offences where the parties have settled and the prospect of conviction is remote.
Summary
Sandeep Kumar Yadav filed an application to quash the cognizance order dated 14‑11‑2024 for offences under IPC sections 376, 420, 313, 379, 323 and the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging that the matter arose from a broken love relationship and that both parties have now settled their dispute through a mutual compromise deed. The informant, Priya Kumari, withdrew the FIR and was declared hostile, offering no support to the prosecution. The High Court examined its inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash proceedings even for non‑compoundable offences when the parties have resolved the dispute and the likelihood of conviction is remote. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (B.S. Joshi, Gian Singh, Shiji @ Pappu, Narinder Singh) the Court held that the nature of the offences—primarily matrimonial/family‑dispute‑related—permits the exercise of this power. Consequently, the order taking cognizance was set aside and the criminal proceeding was quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences under Section 482 CrPC when the parties have reached a settlement.
- Whether the compromise and the hostile stance of the informant render continuation of the trial futile.
- Whether the nature of the offences (dowry‑related and family dispute) allows the exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 320, 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 313, 323, 376, 379, 420
Subjects
- quash
- Section 482
- non‑compoundable offences
- dowry prohibition
- settlement
- compromise
- high court jurisdiction
- criminal procedure
- IPC offences
- hostile witness
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25432 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S District- West Champaran
======================================================
Sandeep Kumar Yadav S/O Yogendra Yadav R/O Village- Deora, P.S-
Babubarhi, Dis.- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Priya Kumari D/O Birendra Prasad Singh R/O Bankerva. P.S- Parasa, Distt.-
Saran. Also at Plus 2 Rajkiya Anusuchit Janjati Awasiya Balika Ucch
Vidayalaya, Ghamora, P.S- Sahodar, Distt.-West Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Anish Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 22-01-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, O.P. No. 2 and
the learned APP for the State.
2. This is an application for quashing the cognizance
order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-VI, West Champaran, Bettiah in connection
with Mahila P.S. Case No. 30 of 2024 dated 01.07.2024 bearing
G.R. No. 2809 of 2024, whereby cognizance for the offences
punishable under Sections 376, 420, 313, 379 and 323 of the
Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25432 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
2/9
Act has been taken against the petitioner pending in the court
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner and O.P. No. 2 were in love and the petitioner had
accepted to marry the informant but on being influenced by other
persons, the informant/O.P. No. 2 lodged the present FIR. It has
been submitted that the police mechanically submitted charge-
sheet and even the learned trial court took cognizance for the
offences under Sections 376, 420, 313, 379 and 323 of the Indian
Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by
order dated 14.11.2024, which has been impugned through the
present application.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
informant and the petitioner have settled their dispute and no
grievance is left against each other and both the side have mutually
filed a compromise deed on 04.02.2025 before the learned trial
court which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-P-3.
Learned counsel referring to the said compromise petition has
pointed out towards paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 which are hereunder:
“5. Whereas efforts and attempts were made
by the friends and elders as well as the respectable
people of the society thereby clarifying all the bonafide
mistakes, misunderstandings between the parties. The
Second Party has thus agreed to withdra the FIR made
against the First Party and the parties shall make
statements before the court or police authorities in this
respect as and when required.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25432 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
3/9
6. Whereas Second Party undertakes to
withdraw the FIR Bettiah Mahila P.S. case no. 30/2024.
7. Whereas All the disputes between the
parties stands finally resolved and there is no ill will or
complaint against each other in any manner.”
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that, in fact, in the same compromise petition in paragraph-10 it
was also decided that any complaint by the parties against each
other shall stand withdrawn, cancelled or revoked finally after
signing of the mutual compromise deed.
6. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 does not dispute
the factum of compromise entered between the parties and, in fact,
has gone on to add that the O.P. No. 2 was even examined as P.W.
1 in the trial, wherein she has categorically stated that no physical
relationship between the petitioner and the informant had been
established and, in fact, she wanted to marry with the petitioner
however the parents of the petitioner were not ready for the same.
The O.P. No. 2 was declared hostile at the request of the
prosecution and thereafter, the prosecution had cross-examined her
wherein she has categorically stated that she had no physical
relationship with the petitioner and no assault was committed by
the petitioner and there is no obscene video clip of her along with
the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 has
submitted that now no dispute remains between the parties and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25432 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
4/9
O.P. No. 2 does not object to the application of the petitioner,
which has been filed primarily for quashing of the order taking
cognizance.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the records it is clear that the parties have compromised
and they do not want to pursue the matter further. It is evident
from the deposition of O.P. No. 2 that she has not supported the
prosecution case and was, in fact, declared hostile and therefore
the result of the trial is a foregone conclusion.
9. The question which confronts this Court is with
regard to quashing of a proceeding in a matter wherein non-
compoundable offence is involved. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 4
SCC 675, has observed that Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. does not
limit or control the powers vested in High Court under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C. and the High Court is empowered to quash criminal
proceedings/FIR, even if non-compoundable offences are
involved.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with
powers of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the case of Gian Singh v. State of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25432 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
5/9
Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, in paragraph-61 has
observed as under:
“61. The position that emerges from the
above discussion can be summarised thus : the power of
the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR
or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is
distinct and different from the power given to a criminal
court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of
the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no
statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord
with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to
secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of any court. In what cases power to quash the
criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be
exercised where the offender and the victim have settled
their dispute would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no category can be
prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the
High Court must have due regard to the nature and
gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity,
etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or
victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute.
Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious
impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the
victim and the offender in relation to the offences under
special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or
the offences committed by public servants while working
in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for
quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences.
But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing
for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences
arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the offences
arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the
family disputes where the wrong is basically private or
personal in nature and the parties have resolved their
entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court
may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because
of the compromise between the offender and the victim,
the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of the criminal case would put the accused
to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice
would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case
despite full and complete settlement and compromise with
the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider
whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of
justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding would
tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement
and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer
and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate
that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25432 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
6/9
the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court
shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding.”
11. In Shiji @ Pappu and Ors. v. Radhika and Anr.
Reported in (2011) 10 SCC 705, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed as under:
“17. It is manifest that simply because an
offence is not compoundable under Section 320 IPC is by
itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our
opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of
recording a conviction against the accused and the entire
exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility.
There is a subtle distinction between compounding of an
offence by the parties before the trial court or in appeal
on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court
to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the
other. While a Court trying an accused or hearing an
appeal against conviction, may not be competent to
permit compounding of an offences based on a settlement
arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences
are non-compoundable under Section 320, the High Court
may quash the prosecution even in cases where the
offences with which the accused stand charged are non-
compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose
controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C.”
12. This Court has earlier dealt with the judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Narinder Singh
and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Anr reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466
and has observed 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.”
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High
Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of
criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression
and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to
him by not quashing the criminal cases.
xxx
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25432 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
7/9
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its
power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of
settlement plays 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 til 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 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...”
13. From the above, it would be evident that the High
Court is not divested of its power in cases in which serious
offences are alleged and are not compoundable. From the aforesaid
judgments, it could be understood that where the parties have
settled the differences between them and on account of such
settlement, they are living in harmony and their mutual
relationship has been restored, then the High Courts can exercise
their extraordinary jurisdiction to quash such proceedings which
would otherwise on reading aggravate the differences between the
parties.
14. The aforesaid judgments, one more aspect comes to
the mind that the informant having been declared hostile and her
statement having not supported the case of the prosecution,
whether the petitioner could be convicted any further? To the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25432 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
8/9
understanding of this Court, to continue with the trial would be an
effort in futility and no useful purpose would be served especially
for the fact that there are very faint chances of any evidence
further, which would go on to prove the guilt of the petitioner,
once the informant of the case has not supported the factum of the
incident. Thus, it is clear that in appropriate cases the Court can
exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such
proceedings in the interest of justice and lay to rest, the entire
criminal proceedings.
15. This Court has already observed, hereinabove, that
the parties have settled through a compromise and she does not
want to take any further action against the petitioner and, in fact,
from the compromise petition, it is evident that there is a clause
that the criminal cases between the parties shall be withdrawn.
16. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, in the peculiar facts of the present case the application is
allowed and the order taking cognizance dated 14.11.2024 passed
by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, West
Champaran, Bettiah arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 30 of
2024 dated 01.07.2024 bearing G.R. No. 2809 of 2024, pending
before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, West
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25432 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
9/9
Champaran at Bettiah, is set aside and the entire criminal
proceeding is, hereby, quashed.
17. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
krishna/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 28.01.2026
Transmission Date 28.01.2026
Checking your session…