Patna High Court
Vikash Kumar and OrsversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The High Court may quash a non‑compoundable Section 498A proceeding where the dispute is matrimonial, the parties have voluntarily settled, and continuation would be an abuse of process.
Summary
The petitioners, who are relatives of the complainant, sought quashing of a 2015 criminal proceeding under Section 498A IPC that the Begusarai Magistrate had taken cognizance of. The complaint alleged dowry demand and torture, but during the pendency the complainant and her husband amicably settled the dispute through mediation on 22 September 2025 and expressed no desire to continue the case. Both the complainant and the State, represented by an Additional Public Prosecutor, did not object to the petition. The High Court examined the scope of its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of non‑compoundable offences when the dispute is essentially private and settled voluntarily. Considering the matrimonial nature of the dispute, the genuine settlement, and the lack of public interest, the Court quashed the order of cognizance and the entire proceeding. The application was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal proceeding under the non‑compoundable offence of Section 498A IPC can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when the parties have reached an amicable settlement.
- Whether the settlement between the complainant and her husband is genuine and sufficient to justify the exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 202, 320, 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- Section 498A
- dowry harassment
- matrimonial dispute
- quash
- inherent jurisdiction
- Section 482 CrPC
- compromise
- mediation
- non-compoundable offence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27980 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-214 Year-2015 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE
District- Begusarai
======================================================
1. Vikash Kumar son of Maheshwar Ram
2. Pushpa Kumari D/o Maheshwar Ram
3. Maheshwar Ram S/o Ayodhya Das
4. Gujiya Devi wife of Maheshwar Ram
5. Vindu Devi @ Vindu Kumari wife of Vikash Kumar All residents of Village
- Gwalpara, P.S. Rupauli, District Purnia.
6. Shiv Shankar Das S/o Late Jagdish Das Resident of Village - Tintanga, P.O.
- Nawgachhiya, District Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Guriya Kumari D/o Kusheshwar Mochi resident of Village Rahua, P.S.
Sahebpur Kamal, District - Begusarai at present Quarter No. F 2178, Sector
No. 2, Bokaro Steel City, P.S. - Sector - 12, District - Bokaro Jharkhand.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Randhir Kumar No-1, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
9 19-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for O.P. No. 2 and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present application has been filed on behalf of
the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order
of cognizance dated 22.07.2015 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27980 of 2018(9) dt.19-02-2026
2/11
Begusarai (hereinafter referred to as ‘Magistrate’) in Complaint
Case No. 214 of 2015 wherein learned Magistrate took
cognizance of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 against the accused persons including the
petitioners.
3. As per the complainant/O.P. No. 2, the marriage of
O.P. No.2 was solemnized with co-accused Onkar Krishna, on
14.01.2010 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. At the
time of marriage, Rs.70,000/- cash was given to husband of O.P.
No.2. After marriage, she went to her matrimonial home and
from her wedlock, a female child was born on 10.01.2012. It is
alleged that after some time of marriage, all the accused persons
started demanding Rs. 2 lakh from the complainant and due to
non-fulfillment of the same, she was subjected to torture. It has
been further alleged a Panchayati was also held on 07.01.2015
but the accused persons have not changed their attitude and they
refused to return the items given to husband at the time of
marriage. Accordingly, complaint was filed, after inquiring
under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. on the basis of averments in
complaint, S.A. of complainant and evidence of inquiry
witnesses, the cognizance under Section 498A of I.P.C. was
taken on 22.07.2015 against all the accused persons named in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27980 of 2018(9) dt.19-02-2026
3/11
the complaint and accordingly, process were issued against
them. As per the report dated 18.9.2025 of learned Trial Court,
the case is fixed for charge.
4. During the pendency of the present application, the
subsequent development in this case is that complainant/O.P.
No. 2 and her husband have compromised the said case and
amicably resolved all their matrimonial disputes through the
process of mediation, under the terms of the agreement dated
22.09.2025 made between them and they resumed cohabitation
as husband and wife and they do not want to continue further
litigation. The parties have unequivocally stated that the
compromise has been entered into voluntarily, without any
force, fraud or coercion.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that the dispute, which was purely
matrimonial in nature, has already been amicably resolved
between the husband and O.P. No. 2 through the process of
mediation, under the terms of the memorandum of agreement
dated 22.09.2025 made between them before Patna High Court
Mediation Centre. It is further submitted that in view of the said
compromise and in light of the settlement already arrived at
between the husband and wife, the substratum of the case no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27980 of 2018(9) dt.19-02-2026
4/11
longer survives. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the
proceeding against the petitioners, who are in-laws of the O.P.
No. 2, be quashed in the interest of justice.
6. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 submits that in view
of the compromise entered into between the husband and wife,
the O.P. No.2 does not wish to pursue the criminal proceeding
any further. It is submitted that the dispute was matrimonial in
nature and has already been amicably resolved between the
parties. Therefore, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 has no
objection if the present proceeding is brought to an end in the
interest of justice.
7. Learned A.P.P. for the State, in view of the
compromise arrived at between the husband and wife through
the process of mediation, submits that the State has no serious
objection to the prayer made by the petitioners. It is submitted
that since the matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute and the
O.P. No. 2 herself does not intend to proceed with the case,
appropriate orders may be passed by this Court, in accordance
with law.
8. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27980 of 2018(9) dt.19-02-2026
5/11
Penal Code along with the principles guiding the scope thereto.
9. It is well settled that although offences under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is 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.,
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.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi (supra)
has held on the point of genuine settlement between the parties,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27980 of 2018(9) dt.19-02-2026
6/11
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.”
11. 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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27980 of 2018(9) dt.19-02-2026
7/11
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)
12. 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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27980 of 2018(9) dt.19-02-2026
8/11
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……………………”
13. In the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Mange Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27980 of 2018(9) dt.19-02-2026
9/11
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
proceedings. It would be a grave abuse of
process particularly when the dispute is
settled and resolved.”
14. Having considered the submissions advanced on
behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the materials available
on record, it appears that the prosecution case arises out of a
matrimonial dispute between O.P. No. 2 and her husband,
namely, Krishna. The allegations in the F.I.R. relate to demand
of dowry and alleged acts of torture said to have been
committed after the marriage. It further transpires from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27980 of 2018(9) dt.19-02-2026
10/11
record that during the pendency of the case, the husband and
wife entered into an amicable settlement.
15. Further, it is also not in dispute that O.P. No. 2,
through the learned counsel, has categorically stated before this
Court that she does not intend to pursue the criminal case any
further. The learned A.P.P. for the State has also expressed no
objection in view of the compromise. In the aforesaid factual
backdrop, it is evident that the substratum of the dispute was
matrimonial in nature and stood amicably resolved between the
principal parties.
16. Accordingly, in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced on behalf
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 22.07.2015
taking cognizance for the offence under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.,
Begusarai (hereinafter referred to as ‘Magistrate’) in Complaint
Case No. 214 of 2015 as well as the entire criminal proceeding
arising therefrom, qua the petitioners, are hereby quashed.
17. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27980 of 2018(9) dt.19-02-2026
11/11
application stands allowed.
18. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
learned Court concerned forthwith.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-
U T
Checking your session…