BABY NAZversusThe State of Bihar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35893 of 2021
      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-712 Year-2005 Thana- WEST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT
                                    District- West Champaran
     ======================================================
1.    BABY NAZ Wife of Galib Resident of Village - Saiyad Gorari, Dobhi
      Ayurved Vishwavidhalaya, P.S. and District - Jaunpur, (U.P.)
2.   Mohammad Munna @ Munna Khan Son of Late Mohammad Yakub Khan
     Resident of Village - A-25/18, Salempura, P.S.- Adampura, Varanasi, (U.P.)
3.   Harun Khan Son of Late Mohammad Yakub Khan Resident of Village -
     1917-B-1, P.S.- Chauhatta Lal Khan, Varanasi, (U.P.)

                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                       Versus
1.   The State of Bihar
2.   Rehana Khatoon Wife of Humayun Khan Daughter of Shah Mohammad,
     Resident of Ram Nagar, District - West Champaran, Presently resident of
     Kali Bagh, Bettiah, P.S.- Bettiah Town, District - West Champaran.

                                            ... ... Opposite Party/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :     Mr. Rajesh Mohan, Advocate
     For the State          :     Mrs. Usha Kumari, APP
     For the O.P. No.2      :     Mr. Sanjan Kr. Sharan, Advocate
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                     ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 13-01-2026

                       1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Mohan, learned counsel for

      the petitioners, learned APP for the State and Mr. Sanjan Kumar

      Sharan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party

      no.2.

                       2. The instant application has been filed for

      quashing of order dated 06.02.2006 passed by the learned

      S.D.J.M, West Champaran at Bettiah, whereby and whereunder

      the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35893 of 2021 dt.13-01-2026
                                            2/6




         connection with Complaint Case No.712(C) of 2005 (S.Tr. No.

         423 of 2018) under Section 498A of IPC               and also issued

         summons thereunder.

                         3. The short facts of the case, leading to the

         impugned order taking cognizance is, based on the complaint

         filed by the opposite party no.2 (complainant) leading to the

         institution of the Complaint Case No.712(C) of 2005, relates to

         demand of dowry and cruelty meted out to the opposite party

         no.2 at the hands of the accused persons including the present

         petitioners.

                         4. The petitioners before this Court are the sister-in-

         law and two brothers-in-law of the opposite party no.2.

                         5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, besides

         urging other grounds on merits, has primarily laid emphasis on

         the fact that parties have now resolved their differences by filing

         a joint compromise petition dated 31.07.2019 before the learned

         Court of S.D.J.M, West Champaran at Bettiah, indicating therein

         that due to interference of well-wishers, an amicable settlement

         has been reached between the parties and the same was without

         any threat or coercion and that the complainant i.e., the opposite

         party no.2 did not want to pursue the case any further. The

         factum of compromise stands supported by the learned counsel
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35893 of 2021 dt.13-01-2026
                                            3/6




         for the opposite party no.2, who has also filed a counter affidavit

         making specific averments in paragraph nos. 4 and 5 therein that

         issues between the parties have been resolved and in the

         changed situation, the opposite party no.2 did not want to pursue

         the present case and has also signed a compromise petition and

         filed in the Court below on 31.07.2019l itself. It has also been

         indicated that after resolution of differences, the parties are

         living together in the joint family house peacefully and hence,

         there is not good ground to continue the present criminal case

         against the petitioners pending before the learned S.D.J.M, West

         Champaran at Bettiah.

                         6. Upon hearing the submissions of the parties, this

         Court is of the view that in a case under Section 498A of IPC

         where the petitioners are the relatives of the husband of the

         complainant/informant coupled with the factum of compromise

         having been reached between the parties, continuation of

         criminal prosecution would serve no useful purpose and there

         are, several judicial pronouncements to the effect that even in

         the case of compromise in non-compoundable offences, the

         power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. ought to be exercised for

         quashing of prosecution where the parties have settled the

         matter and the complainant does not want to pursue the case any
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35893 of 2021 dt.13-01-2026
                                            4/6




         further.

                          7. In a very recent case of Mange Ram Vs. State

         of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. [2025 INSC 962], the Hon’ble

         Supreme Court after discussing the earlier judgments on the

         issue of family members of the husband being unnecessarily

         roped into criminal proceedings in matrimonial discord, has laid

         down that continuation of criminal proceedings, in the event of

         a compromise between parties even in case of non-

         compoundable offences, especially in matters of matrimony,

         would only be an exercise in futility and justice demands that

         the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is

         restored.

                         8. Such observation has been made with specific

         reference to offence arising out of matrimonial dispute

         particularly relating to dowry etc., or a family dispute where the

         wrong is committed with the offender and the victim have

         settled dispute between them.

                         9. In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab

         reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, it had been held by the Hon’ble

         Supreme Court that High Court within the framework of

         inherent power, may quash the criminal proceedings, if it is

         satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35893 of 2021 dt.13-01-2026
                                            5/6




         likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing

         criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of

         justice shall be defeated.

                         10. In the case of Naushey Ali vs. State of U.P.,

         reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78, there is clear-cut observation by

         the Hon’ble Supreme Court that when the parties have amicably

         resolved the dispute, proceeding with the trial 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.

                         11. Taking into consideration the entire facts and

         circumstances of the case, the submissions made on behalf of

         the parties, this Court is of the considered view that in the

         backdrop of resolution of dispute between the parties, the

         continuation of criminal proceedings against the family

         members of the husband of the complainant/opposite party no.2,

         especially, in absence of any specific allegations, would serve

         no legitimate purpose as has been held in the case of Mange

         Ram (supra), it would only prolong bitterness between the

         parties and unnecessarily burden the justice system, especially

         when the disputes are no longer live.

                         12. Accordingly, considering it to be the duty of
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35893 of 2021 dt.13-01-2026
                                                         6/6




                      this Court to bring quietus to personal disputes that have already

                      been settled between the parties, this Court in its inherent

                      jurisdiction of 482 Cr.P.C. would consider the continuation of

                      the criminal proceedings abuse of the process of the Court.

                      Consequently, impugned order dated 06.02.2006 passed by the

                      learned S.D.J.M, West Champaran at Bettiah in Complaint Case

                      No. 712(C) of 2005 (S.Tr. No. 423 of 2018) against the

                      petitioners is hereby quashed.

                                      13. Accordingly, criminal prosecution arising out of

                      Complaint Case No.712(C) of 2005 (S.Tr. No. 423 of 2018) is

                      quashed as against the petitioners and the instant application is

                      allowed.


                                                 (Soni Shrivastava, J)


Harsh/-
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                N.A.
Uploading Date          16.01.2026
Transmission Date       16.01.2026