Patna High Court

Ram Swaroop Gupta and AnrversusState Of Bihar and Anr

Decided: 21 April 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

Holding

The High Court quashed the order of cognizance and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners as the allegations were vague, no specific act was established, and the matter was a private matrimonial dispute settled by compromise.

Summary

Jyoti Devi filed a dowry‑related complaint alleging cruelty, assault and dowry demands against her husband Vikash Kumar and his parents, Ram Swaroop Gupta and Rita Devi. The Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of offences under IPC Sections 323, 504, 498A and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and issued summons. The parents filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quash of the order, contending that the allegations against them were vague, no specific overt act was shown, and the parties had reached an amicable compromise. The High Court examined the complaint, found the allegations against the parents to be general and lacking specificity, noted that the dispute was essentially matrimonial and settled by compromise, and held that proceeding would be an abuse of process. Accordingly, the court quashed the order of cognizance and the criminal proceedings against the parents, allowing the application.

Issues considered

Whether the order of cognizance against the petitioners under IPC Sections 323, 504, 498A and the Dowry Prohibition Act can be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Whether the complaint discloses a prima facie case against the petitioners.
Whether a bona‑fide compromise in a matrimonial dispute justifies quashing proceedings even for non‑compoundable offences.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A, 504

Subjects

dowry
cruelty
Section 498A
non‑compoundable offence
Section 482 CrPC
quash
matrimonial dispute
compromise
abuse of process

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31837 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-523 Year-2016 Thana- MUNGER COMPLAINT CASE
District- Munger
======================================================
1. Ram Swaroop Gupta, Son of Ram Awatar Tanti
2. Rita Devi, Wife of Ram Swaroop Gupta, Both resident of Village- Akta
Nagar, A. House No. 39, Stree no. 01, Behind D.M.W. Patiyala, P.O.-
Patiyala, P.S.- Nabha, District- Patiyala, In the State of Punjab, PIN Code-
147001.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Jyoti Devi, Wife of Vikash Kumar, Daughter of late Hira Lal, Resident of
village- Chhoti Daultpur, P.S.- Jamalpur, District- Munger.

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anish Chandra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. S.K. Thakur, Advocate
: Mr. Adity Kumar Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER

6 21-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as

learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been filed on behalf of

the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash

the order dated 04.01.2017 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional

Judicial Magistrate, Munger (hereinafter referred to as

‘Magistrate’) in connection with Complaint Case No. 523(C) of

2016 wherein the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the

offence under Section 323, 504 and 498A of the Indian Penal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31837 of 2018(6) dt.21-04-2026
2/8

Code, 1860 and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,

1961 against the petitioners herein, who are in-laws of the O.P.

No.2 and also against the husband of the O.P. No.2.

3. The brief facts of the case, as emerging from the

record, are that O.P. No.2 (complainant), namely Jyoti Devi,

instituted Complaint Case No. 523(C) of 2016 before the Court

of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, alleging inter alia

that her marriage with the son of the petitioners, namely Vikash

Kumar, was solemnized on 20.05.2015 as per Hindu rites and

customs. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, substantial

cash and articles including gold and silver ornaments and

household items were given as dowry. The complainant (O.P.

No.2) has further alleged that after a brief period of cordial

matrimonial life, she was subjected to cruelty, assault, and

harassment by her husband and his family members, including

the present petitioners (father-in-law and mother-in-law of O.P.

No.2), on account of non-fulfilment of further dowry demands

to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with other articles. It is also

alleged that her ornaments were forcibly taken away and she

was threatened with dire consequences and ouster from her

matrimonial home. Subsequently, upon non-fulfilment of the

alleged demands, the accused persons are stated to have refused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31837 of 2018(6) dt.21-04-2026
3/8

to take her back and further threatened to solemnize a second

marriage of her husband. On the basis of the said allegations,

the aforesaid Complaint Case was filed.

4. Upon perusal of the materials available on record

and after recording the solemn affirmation of the complainant as

well as the statements of the inquiry witnesses, the learned

Magistrate, prima facie, found sufficient grounds to proceed in

the matter and, accordingly, took cognizance of the offences

under Sections 323, 504 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and

under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against Vikash

Kumar (husband of O.P. No.2), Ram Swaroop Gupta (petitioner

no.1), and Rita Devi (petitioner no.2) vide the impugned order

of cognizance dated 04.01.2017 and directed issuance of

summons. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of

cognizance petitioner nos.1 and 2 filed the present Criminal

Miscellaneous Application to quash the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

impugned order of cognizance is wholly illegal and has been

passed without proper appreciation of the materials available on

record. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners,

being the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant

(O.P. No.2), have been falsely implicated in the present case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31837 of 2018(6) dt.21-04-2026
4/8

with ulterior motive and that the allegations made in the

complaint petition are general, omnibus and devoid of any

specific overt act so as to attract the ingredients of the alleged

offences. It is submitted that no prima facie case is made out

against the petitioners and the continuation of the criminal

proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

Learned counsel also submits that the parties have already

entered into a compromise and a petition dated 23.05.2017 to

that effect has been filed before the learned Magistrate, and as

such, in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, the

impugned order as well as the entire criminal proceeding are fit

to be quashed.

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

dispute between the parties has now been amicably settled and a

compromise petition to that effect has already been filed before

the learned Magistrate. Learned counsel further submits that

pursuant to the said settlement, the O.P. No.2 and her husband

are now living together peacefully with harmony and there is no

subsisting grievance between them. In view of the aforesaid

development, it is submitted that O.P. No.2 has no objection if

the present criminal proceeding is quashed.

7. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31837 of 2018(6) dt.21-04-2026
5/8

the compromise between the parties, the appropriate order may

be passed.

8. In the present case, upon careful examination of the

complaint petition and the materials brought on record, it

transpires that the allegations made against the present

petitioners, who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the

complainant, are largely general and omnibus in nature. Though

allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty have been levelled,

the complaint does not disclose any specific overt act or

particular instance attributable to the petitioners so as to prima

facie establish their direct involvement in the alleged offences.

The statements recorded during inquiry also appear to be

reiterative of the broad allegations made in the complaint

without assigning any distinct role to the petitioners herein.

9. It further appears from the record that the dispute

between the parties primarily arises out of matrimonial discord

between the complainant (O.P. No.2) and her husband. The

materials on record indicate that a compromise petition has also

been filed between the parties before the learned Magistrate,

suggesting that the matter is essentially private in nature. In

such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceeding

against the present petitioners, in absence of specific allegations
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31837 of 2018(6) dt.21-04-2026
6/8

and in view of the subsequent development of settlement, would

amount to abuse of the process of the Court and is not warranted

in the interest of justice.

10. 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 scope of interference

under section 482 of the Cr.P.C within the ambit of inherent

power of the High Court is now well settled. The reference may

be taken of the judgment of 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. Now it is well settled held

that in matters predominantly bearing a civil or personal

character, particularly matrimonial disputes, such inherent
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31837 of 2018(6) dt.21-04-2026
7/8

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.

11. 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
proceedings. It would be a grave abuse of
process particularly when the dispute is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31837 of 2018(6) dt.21-04-2026
8/8

settled and resolved.”

12. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and

considering the nature of allegations as well as the materials

available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that

it is not justified to continue the criminal proceeding against the

petitioners. Allowing the proceeding to continue against them

would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and would

result in miscarriage of justice.

13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated

04.01.2017 passed in Complaint Case No. 523(C) of 2016 by

the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger, so far

as it relates to the present petitioners, is hereby quashed and set

aside.

14. Resultantly, the entire criminal proceeding arising

therefrom qua the petitioners also stands quashed.

15. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application,

accordingly, stands allowed.

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

Court concerned forthwith for needful compliance.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…