Patna High Court
Arjun Singh and OrsversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The High Court held that, notwithstanding the non‑compoundable nature of the offences, the FIR could be quashed under Section 482 CrPC because the dispute was private, the settlement was bona‑fide, and continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process.
Summary
The petitioners filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashment of an FIR (Bakhtiyarpur PS Case No.371 of 2017) that alleged offences including cruelty, assault, dowry harassment and Section 498A IPC. The complainant, Mausami Kumari, claimed she was married to Arjun Singh, faced dowry demands, physical and mental cruelty, and was threatened with a second marriage. The parties later reached an amicable settlement of Rs.15 lakh and filed for mutual consent divorce, prompting both the complainant and the State to support quashing the FIR. The High Court examined the settled nature of the dispute, the non‑compoundable character of the offences, and recent Supreme Court pronouncements on the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482. Finding the compromise bona‑fide and the dispute essentially private, the Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR. Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous application was allowed and the proceedings were terminated.
Issues considered
- The court must determine whether an FIR involving non‑compoundable offences such as Section 498A IPC can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when the parties have reached a bona‑fide settlement.
- Whether the settlement and mutual consent divorce negate the public interest in prosecuting the alleged offences.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- Section 482 CrPC
- quashment of FIR
- non‑compoundable offences
- dowry prohibition
- domestic violence
- mariage dispute settlement
- court's inherent powers
- public interest
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28045 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-371 Year-2017 Thana- BAKHTIYARPUR District- Patna
======================================================
1. Arjun Singh Son of Shri Ambika Singh
2. Ambika Prasad Singh, Son of Late Kesho Singh
3. Sonali Singh D/o Shri Ambika Singh
4. Neetu Singh, D/o Shri Ambika Singh
5. Daulat Devi, W/o Shri Ambika Singh
6. Rakesh Kumar Singh, S/o Shri Ram Pravesh Singh
7. Madhu Devi, D/o Shri Ambika Singh
8. Ritesh Singh, S/o Sri Kapildev Singh All are Resident of Mohalla-
Chhawani, P.S.- Tekari, District- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Mausami Kumari, D/o Sachidanand Singh, Resident of Village-
Mahmadpur, P.S.- Bakhtiyarpur, District- Patna.
.
.. ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Singh, Advocate.
Ms. Megha Singh, Advocate.
Ms. Sadhna Parashar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shivanand Singh, Advocate.
Mr. Andlib Improse, Advocate.
Ms. Amisha Prakash, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
9 02-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2.
2. The present Cr. Misc. Application has been filed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28045 of 2018(9) dt.02-04-2026
2/6
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the First Information
Report bearing Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No.371 of 2017
instituted under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 498(A)/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 against the petitioners.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that O.P. No.2,
Mausami Kumari, lodged a written report in Bakhtiyarpur P.S.
alleging that she was married to Arjun Singh (petitioner no.1) on
06.05.2013 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. At the
instance of her marriage with petitioner no.1, father of O.P. No.2
gifted furniture, jewellery, utensils, etc. with cash amounting to
Rs. 13,00,000/- and Rs.7,00,000/- in cheque to the in-laws of
O.P. No.2. It is further alleged that soon after the marriage, O.P.
No.2 was subjected to cruelty by her husband and in-laws, who
demanded an additional sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Upon her refusal,
she was allegedly abused and physically assaulted by her in-
laws. Subsequently, she was taken to Delhi by her husband,
where she continued to face physical and mental cruelty coupled
with several restrictions. During this period, O.P. No.2
conceived and was later left at her parental home, where she
gave birth to a girl child, with all medical expenses borne by her
father. It is further alleged that despite efforts made by her father
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28045 of 2018(9) dt.02-04-2026
3/6
to resolve the dispute, the accused persons intensified the
harassment including mental and physical torture. It is also
alleged that due to unemployment of petitioner no.1, O.P. No.2
attempted to pursue employment by applying for the BETET
examination, which led to further harassment. On 14.06.2017,
when her father came to take her for the examination, the
accused persons allegedly refused and demanded money,
compelling her father to lodge a Sanha before the police,
following which she was brought back to her parental home. On
06.07.2017, her husband and father-in-law, along with others,
allegedly visited her parental home, abused and threatened her
family. Thereafter, her husband allegedly threatened to
solemnize a second marriage. It is also alleged that on
03.09.2017, she received threatening phone calls, giving rise to
apprehension of further criminal acts. On the basis of the
aforesaid allegations, Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No.371 of 2017
was instituted.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that parties
have compromised the matter as one time settlement of
Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh) which is to be paid to the
O.P. No.2 (informant). Both the parties have also filed petition
for divorce with mutual consent and now they have no claim
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28045 of 2018(9) dt.02-04-2026
4/6
against each other.
5. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 submits that in
view of the compromise taken place between the parties, he has
no objection to quash the proceedings of F.I.R. bearing
Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No.371 of 2017 against the petitioners.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State also submits that in
view of the settlement between the parties, no purpose would be
served to continue the criminal proceedings and the same may
be quashed by this Court.
7. Notably, it is a settled principle of law that although
offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and other
allied provisions are non-compoundable, the High Court, in
exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, can quash criminal proceedings where the
dispute is essentially private in nature and emanates from
matrimonial discord, and the parties have arrived at an amicable
settlement. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28045 of 2018(9) dt.02-04-2026
5/6
Gujarat and Anr., reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, has
authoritatively held that in matters predominantly bearing a civil
or personal character, particularly matrimonial disputes, such
inherent powers may be invoked to secure the ends of justice
and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, provided that
the compromise is bona fide, voluntary, and without any
coercion. Nonetheless, such power must be exercised cautiously,
having due regard to the nature, seriousness, and societal impact
of the alleged offences.
8. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28045 of 2018(9) dt.02-04-2026
6/6
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.”
9. In the present case, considering the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.P.P. for the
State and in view of the settlement taken place between the
parties, the F.I.R. bearing Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No.371 of
2017 is hereby quashed.
10. Accordingly, the present Cr. Misc. Application
stands allowed.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-
U
Checking your session…