Patna High Court

Bijay Kumar Gupta @ Vijay Kumar Gupta and AnrversusState Of Bihar and Anr

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

Holding

The High Court quashed the order of cognizance and dismissed the criminal proceeding, holding that continuation would be an abuse of process under Section 482 CrPC.

Summary

The petitioners sought quashing of the order of cognizance dated 04‑01‑2016 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, in a case arising from alleged domestic violence under IPC sections 341, 323, 506 and 498A/34. The complainant, Mamta Devi, alleged that her husband assaulted her and their son; the husband later died during the pendency of the proceedings and the brother‑in‑law was also implicated on a general, omnibus basis. Both the complainant and the State expressed that the complainant no longer wishes to pursue the matter and that the dispute was essentially matrimonial. The High Court, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and relying on the Supreme Court’s principles in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, held that continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process and that no useful purpose would be served. Consequently, the order of cognizance was quashed and the criminal miscellaneous application was allowed.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding where the accused has died and the complainant has expressed unwillingness to prosecute?
Do the allegations against the brother‑in‑law constitute a private dispute that warrants quashing of the proceeding?
Does the death of the primary accused abate the criminal proceeding against him?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 320, 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 498A, 506

Subjects

Section 482
quash of criminal proceeding
domestic violence
abuse of process
inherent jurisdiction
settlement
death of accused
general omnibus allegation

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26978 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-254 Year-2015 Thana- KOTWALI District- Munger
======================================================
1. Bijay Kumar Gupta @ Vijay Kumar Gupta
2. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Both sons of Late Narayan Prasad Gupta, Both Resident
of Mohalla-Murgiyachak, Purab Sarai, Police Station-Kotwali, District-
Munger.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mamta Devi Wife of Bijay Kumar Gupta @ Vijay Kumar Gupta, Both
Resident of Mohalla-Murgiyachak, Purab Sarai, Police Station-Kotwali,
District-Munger.

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abdul Mannan Khan, Advocate
Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mustaque Alam, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Verma, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER

6 19-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party

no. 2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order

of cognizance dated 04.01.2016 passed by learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Munger (hereinafter referred to as

‘Magistrate’) in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 254 of 2015 (G.R. No.

2123 of 2015), wherein the learned Magistrate took cognizance

of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 506 and 498A/34 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioners.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26978 of 2018(6) dt.19-02-2026
2/7

3. The factual background, in the present case, is that

the O.P. No.2, Mamta Devi, submitted a written report to the

S.H.O., Purab Sarai T.O.P., Munger where it was alleged that

her husband (petitioner no.1), used to assault her and her son

after consuming liquor. It was further alleged that on 14.11.2015

at about 5:30 P.M., when she returned home after purchasing

articles for Puja, petitioner no.1 questioned her about the money

earned, abused her in filthy language, and assaulted both her and

their son, as a result of which the son sustained a head injury.

The O.P. No.2 also alleged that she had earlier lodged

complaints against her husband but there was no change in his

behaviour. On the basis of the said written report, police case

bearing Kotwali P.S. Case No. 254 of 2015 (G.R. No. 2123 of

2015) was registered and, after investigation, charge-sheet was

filed and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences

and issued summons to the petitioners, by the impugned order

dated 04.01.2016. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of O.P. No.2,

whereas petitioner No.2 is the brother-in-law (devar) of O.P.

No.2.

4. During the pendency of the present application, the

subsequent development in this case is that the petitioner no.1

(husband of O.P. No.2) died.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26978 of 2018(6) dt.19-02-2026
3/7

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

petitioner no.1 who was the husband of the O.P. No.2, has

already expired during the pendency of the proceeding and, as

such, the case against him has abated. It is submitted that so far

as petitioner no.2, who is brother-in-law (devar) of the O.P.

No.2, is concerned, the allegation against him in the F.I.R. is

general and omnibus, and he has been implicated only on

account of his relationship with the petitioner no.1. It is

submitted that the dispute between the parties arose out of

matrimonial discord and the same has now been resolved, and

therefore no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the

criminal prosecution pending. Moreover, it is submitted that in

the absence of any intention on the part of the O.P. No.2 to

pursue the matter, compelling petitioner no.2 to face the rigours

of criminal trial would amount to undue harassment. Learned

counsel further prays that considering the subsequent

development and the expressed unwillingness of O.P. No.2 to

prosecute the case, this Court, in exercise of its inherent

jurisdiction, quash the impugned order of cognizance along with

the entire criminal proceeding in the interest of justice.

6. Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 submits that the

dispute between the parties arose out of matrimonial discord and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26978 of 2018(6) dt.19-02-2026
4/7

misunderstanding within the family. It is submitted that with the

passage of time, the parties have resolved their differences

amicably and O.P. No.2 does not intend to pursue the criminal

case any further. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner

no.1 (husband of O.P. No.2) has already expired and O.P. No.2

does not wish to continue the proceeding against petitioner no.

2, who is her brother-in-law. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed

that this Court may take a lenient view and pass appropriate

orders in the interest of justice.

7. Learned A.P.P. for the State, fairly submits that O.P.

No.2 has expressed her unwillingness to pursue the matter as

her husband (petitioner no.1) with whom she had grievances has

already expired and petitioner no.2 is her brother-in-law against

whom the allegations are general and omnibus. In view of the

subsequent development in this case, learned A.P.P. prays to

pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners,

learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and learned A.P.P. for the State,

and have carefully perused the materials available on record. It

appears that the present case arose out of matrimonial discord

between petitioner no.1 (since deceased) and O.P. No.2. Learned

counsel for the O.P. No.2 has categorically stated before this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26978 of 2018(6) dt.19-02-2026
5/7

Court that she does not wish to pursue the criminal proceeding

any further. In view of the subsequent development and

considering that the dispute was essentially personal in nature,

the continuance of the criminal proceeding would not serve any

useful purpose. Moreover, petitioner no.1 having died, the

proceeding against him stands abated, and so far as petitioner

no.2 is concerned, the allegations against him are general and

omnibus in nature. In such circumstances, this Court is of the

considered opinion that allowing the prosecution to continue

would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

9. 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 and Ors. v. State

of Gujarat and Anr., reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26978 of 2018(6) dt.19-02-2026
6/7

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 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……………………”

10. Accordingly, in view of the discussions made

hereinabove and considering the subsequent development
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26978 of 2018(6) dt.19-02-2026
7/7

wherein O.P. No.2 has expressed her unwillingness to pursue the

matter any further, this Court is of the considered opinion that

continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse

of the process of law. Further, in the facts and circumstances of

the case, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the

prosecution to continue against petitioner no.2.

11. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 04.01.2016

passed in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 254 of 2015 (G.R. No. 2123 of

2015) by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, taking

cognizance of the offences aforementioned and issuing

summons against the petitioners, is hereby quashed.

12. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous

application stands allowed.

13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the

learned Court concerned forthwith.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…