Patna High Court
Usha Singh and AnrversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The High Court quashed the order of cognizance and the entire criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
Summary
The petitioners, husband and in‑laws of Minakshi Kumari, challenged the order of cognizance dated 29‑06‑2017 under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging that the criminal case stemmed from matrimonial discord. The complainant had filed the complaint alleging dowry demands, cruelty, and assault, but the parties later entered into a mutual settlement in a family court, withdrawing all pending cases and agreeing on a full and final financial settlement. The petitioners and the complainant sought quashing of the criminal proceedings, contending that the dispute was private, the settlement was genuine and voluntary, and continuation would be an abuse of process. The High Court examined the scope of its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC and the jurisprudence that permits quashing of non‑compoundable offences when the matter is overwhelmingly civil in nature. Finding the compromise genuine, the court held that the possibility of conviction was remote and that quashing would serve the ends of justice, and therefore set aside the order of cognizance and dismissed the criminal proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings under the non‑compoundable offences of Section 498A IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act can be quashed on the basis of a genuine settlement between the parties.
- Whether the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash such proceedings despite the offences being non‑compoundable.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 4
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 13B(1)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- Section 498A
- non‑compoundable offence
- quashing of criminal proceedings
- settlement
- inherent jurisdiction
- Section 482 CrPC
- matrimonial dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29176 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-860 Year-2017 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Rishikesh Kumar Singh S/o Ram Bilash Singh, R/o Vill.- Shyampur, P.S.-
Khodabandpur, District- Begusarai. At present residing at Flat No.12, A Bing
3rd Floor, Kailash Dham, Building Gopal Nagar Lane No.1, Dombibali East ,
P.S.- Dombibali, District- Maharastra-400708.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Minakshi Kumari @ Biuti W/o Rishikesh Kumari Singh, D/o Sri Umesh
Prasad Chaudhary, At present residing at Mohallah Baikunthpuri, Aswarylok
, P.S.- Ahiyapur, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 26533 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-860 Year-2017 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Usha Singh wife of Ram Bilash Singh
2. Ram Bilash Singh son of Late Gita Singh Both permanent resident of
Village - Shyampur, P.S. Khodabandpur, District - Begusarai at present
residing at Mohalla - Ambika Goshwami, Quarter No. 12 D 12 West
Anandpuri, Boring Canal Road, P.O. S.K. Puri, P.S. Krishnapuri, District -
Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Minakshi Kumari alias Beauty wife of Rishikesh Kumari Singh, Daughter of
Sri Umesh Prasad Chaudhary At present residing at Mohalla Baikunthpuri,
Aiswaryalok, P.S. - Ahiyapur, District - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 29176 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Kamya Thakur, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajeev Nayan, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Jitendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 26533 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Kamya Thakur, Advocate
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29176 of 2018(6) dt.19-02-2026
2/13
For the State : Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Jitendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
6 19-02-2026 1. Since both the cases arise out of the same
Complaint Case No.860 of 2017, pertain to the same
occurrence, they are taken up together and the same are being
disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
senior counsel for the O.P. No.2 as well as learned A.P.P. for the
State in both the cases.
3. The present applications have been filed on
behalf of the petitioners for quashing the order dated 29.06.2017
passed in Complaint Case No.860 of 2017 by the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, East Muzaffarpur (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Magistrate’) wherein learned Magistrate took
cognizance for the offences under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 against the petitioners who are husband, father-in-law
and mother-in-law of the O.P. No.2.
4. The present applications arise out of Complaint
Case No. 860 of 2017 instituted by the complainant/O.P. No.2,
Minakshi Kumari @ Buiti, before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, alleging commission of offences
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29176 of 2018(6) dt.19-02-2026
3/13
against her by her husband and in-laws. As per the complaint,
marriage of O.P. No.2 with the petitioner, Rishikesh Kumar
Singh, was solemnized on 29.01.2015 according to Hindu rites
and customs at Muzaffarpur. It is alleged that at the time of
marriage, substantial dowry articles including gold and silver
ornaments, furniture and a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs in cash were
given. The O.P. No.2 has alleged that prior to and after the
Bidai, the husband (petitioner) and his family members
demanded a vehicle and further insisted upon transfer of half
share in her paternal house situated at Muzaffarpur. On account
of non-fulfilment of the said demand, she was allegedly
subjected to mental and physical cruelty at her matrimonial
home and during her stay at Mumbai, where she was allegedly
restrained from contacting her parental family and pressurized
to bring additional dowry. It is further alleged that she was
assaulted, abused, and ultimately ousted from her matrimonial
home, and that even during her pregnancy she was pressurized
for abortion. The complainant/O.P. No.2 also narrates
subsequent incidents of alleged assault and abusive conduct, and
asserts that neither her husband nor his family members (in-
laws) visited her after the birth of her child on 04.12.2015. On
the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the learned Magistrate
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29176 of 2018(6) dt.19-02-2026
4/13
took cognizance against the accused persons (the petitioners
herein), which order is under challenge in the present criminal
miscellaneous petition.
5. During the pendency of the present applications,
the subsequent development in this case is that both the parties
(petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous No.29176 of 2018 and
O.P. No.2) have appeared before the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Muzaffarpur in Matrimonial Case No.536 of
2025 and have filed a joint compromise petition supported by
their respective affidavits, stating that they have amicably
resolved all their matrimonial disputes. It has been jointly stated
that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on
29.01.2015 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and that
out of the wedlock one minor daughter, namely, Pragya Pihu,
was born, who shall remain in the care and custody of the
mother. The parties have further stated that they have been
living separately since 25.04.2015 and, owing to irreconcilable
differences, have decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual
consent. In terms of the settlement, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- has
been agreed as one-time full and final settlement towards
maintenance, permanent alimony and stridhan, out of which
Rs.5,00,000/- has been paid through demand draft and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29176 of 2018(6) dt.19-02-2026
5/13
remaining amount is to be paid at the time of second motion. It
has also been agreed that both parties shall withdraw all pending
cases filed against each other and their respective family
members and shall cooperate in quashing the criminal
proceedings. The parties have unequivocally stated that the
compromise has been entered into voluntarily, without any
force, fraud or coercion, and that no further claim of any nature
shall survive between them.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the entire criminal proceeding has arisen out of matrimonial
discord between the husband (petitioner in Criminal
Miscellaneous No.29176 of 2018) and wife (O.P. No.2) and that,
during the pendency of the present applications, the parties have
amicably resolved all their disputes by way of a written
compromise. It is submitted that the parties have already filed a
petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent and have
agreed upon a full and final settlement amount of Rs.10,00,000/-
towards maintenance, permanent alimony and stridhan, out of
which Rs.5,00,000/- has been paid and the remaining amount is
to be paid at the time of second motion. He further submitted
that Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur in
Matrimonial Case No.536 of 2025 under Section 13B(1) of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29176 of 2018(6) dt.19-02-2026
6/13
Hindu Marriage Act allowed the first motion petition filed on
behalf of parties vide order dated 12.11.2025, the copy whereof
also filed on record. It is further submitted that in view of the
settlement, the O.P. No.2 does not wish to pursue the criminal
case and, therefore, continuation of the proceeding would be
nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Learned counsel
submits that since the dispute is purely personal and
matrimonial in nature, this Court, in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction, may be pleased to quash the order taking
cognizance and the entire criminal proceeding.
7. Learned senior counsel for the O.P. No.2 submits
that the matter has been settled amicably between the parties
without any force, fraud or coercion and that O.P. No.2 has
voluntarily entered into the compromise. It is submitted that
O.P. No.2 has received part of the settled amount and is satisfied
with the terms of settlement. It is further submitted that the O.P.
No.2 has no objection if the criminal proceeding, including the
order of cognizance, is quashed in view of the compromise
arrived at between the parties.
8. Learned A.P.P. for the State, while fairly
submitting that the offences alleged arise out of matrimonial
dispute, submits that since the matter has been settled between
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29176 of 2018(6) dt.19-02-2026
7/13
the parties and further the complainant/O.P. No.2 herself does
not intend to pursue the prosecution, this Court may pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law, keeping in view the
nature of allegations and the principles governing quashing of
criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise.
9. Having heard the submissions and upon perusal
of the materials available on record, at this stage, it is apposite
to reiterate the nature of crime under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act along
with the principles guiding the scope thereto.
10. It is well settled that although offences under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and allied provisions are
non-compoundable, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
may quash criminal proceedings if the dispute is predominantly
private and arises out of matrimonial discord, and the parties
have settled the matter amicably. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., reported in
(2003) 4 SCC 675; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.,
reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh and Ors. v.
State of Punjab and Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466; and
Parbatbhai Aahir and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29176 of 2018(6) dt.19-02-2026
8/13
reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that in cases having
overwhelmingly civil or personal flavour, particularly
matrimonial disputes, the High Court may quash the
proceedings to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of
the process of Court, provided the compromise is genuine and
voluntary. However, such power is to be exercised with caution,
having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi
(supra) has held on the point of genuine settlement between the
parties, as under:
“12. The special features in such
matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes
the duty of the court to encourage genuine
settlements of matrimonial disputes.”
12. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court on
power of the High Court within the framework of its inherent
jurisdiction to quash a case with respect to subsequent
settlement has held in Gian Singh (supra) as under:
“61. ………...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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29176 of 2018(6) dt.19-02-2026
9/13
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 the
above question(s) is in the affirmative, the
High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding.”
A similar view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Narinder Singh (supra)
13. Insofar as the principles governing quashing of
a complaint/cognizance/criminal proceeding on the basis of
compromise or settlement between the parties, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held in Parbatbhai Aahir (supra) as under:
“16.The broad principles which emerge from
the precedents on the subject, may be
summarised in the following propositions:
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent
powers of the High Court to prevent an
abuse of the process of any court or to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29176 of 2018(6) dt.19-02-2026
10/13
secure the ends of justice. The provision does
not confer new powers. It only recognises
and preserves powers which inhere in the
High Court.
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the
High Court to quash a first information
report or a criminal proceeding on the
ground that a settlement has been arrived at
between the offender and the victim is not
the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for
the purpose of compounding an offence.
While compounding an offence, the power of
the court is governed by the provisions of
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under
Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is
non-compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a
criminal proceeding or complaint should be
quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482, the High Court must evaluate
whether the ends of justice would justify the
exercise of the inherent power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High
Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has
to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of
justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the
process of any court.
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint
or first information report should be
quashed on the ground that the offender and
victim have settled the dispute, revolves
ultimately on the facts and circumstances of
each case and no exhaustive elaboration of
principles can be formulated.
16.6. In the exercise of the power under
Section 482 and while dealing with a plea
that the dispute has been settled, the High
Court must have due regard to the nature
and gravity of the offence. Heinous and
serious offences involving mental depravity
or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity
cannot appropriately be quashed though the
victim or the family of the victim have settled
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29176 of 2018(6) dt.19-02-2026
11/13
the dispute. Such offences are, truly
speaking, not private in nature but have a
serious impact upon society. The decision to
continue with the trial in such cases is
founded on the overriding element of public
interest in punishing persons for serious
offences.
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences,
there may be criminal cases which have an
overwhelming or predominant element of a
civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing
insofar as the exercise of the inherent power
to quash is concerned……………………”
14. In the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Mange Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.,
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1681 has observed as under:
“29. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in
State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5
SCC 688, observed in paragraph 15.5
thereof that while exercising power under
Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal
proceedings in respect of non-compoundable
offences, which are private in nature and do
not have a serious impact on society, on the
ground that there is a settlement/compromise
between the victim and the offender, it is
necessary to consider the antecedents of the
accused; the conduct of the accused, namely,
whether the accused was absconding and
why he was absconding, how he had
managed with the complainant to enter into
a compromise, etc.
xxx xxx xxx
32. In Naushey Ali v. State of U.P., (2025) 4
SCC 78, one of us (Viswanathan, J.)
observed in paragraph 32 that proceeding
with the trial, when the parties have
amicably resolved the dispute, would be
futile and the ends of justice require that the
settlement be given effect to by quashing the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29176 of 2018(6) dt.19-02-2026
12/13
proceedings. It would be a grave abuse of
process particularly when the dispute is
settled and resolved.”
15. In the present cases, the allegations levelled in
the complaint arise out of matrimonial discord between the
parties soon after their marriage. The dispute is essentially
private and personal in nature, having no impact on society at
large. The parties have been living separately since 25.04.2015
and have now amicably resolved their differences by entering
into a comprehensive settlement, which includes dissolution of
marriage by mutual consent and full and final financial
settlement. The O.P. No.2 herself has intended and has
unequivocally stated that she does not wish to proceed with the
criminal case, as it is explicit from the joint statement of
compromise in Matrimonial Case No.536 of 2025 filed before
the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur. In such
circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the compromise is
genuine and voluntary and that the possibility of conviction, in
view of the settlement, is remote and bleak. Continuation of the
criminal proceeding would, therefore, serve no useful purpose
and would only prolong the agony of the parties.
16. Accordingly, in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced on behalf
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29176 of 2018(6) dt.19-02-2026
13/13
of the parties, and the settled legal position governing quashing
of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise, this Court
is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for exercise of
inherent jurisdiction. The impugned order dated 29.06.2017
taking cognizance for the offences under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, East Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No.
860 of 2017, as well as the entire criminal proceeding arising
therefrom, are hereby quashed.
17. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous
applications stand allowed.
18. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
learned Trial Court forthwith.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Harish/-
U T
Checking your session…