Patna High Court
ShashibhushanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The High Court quashed the order of the Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Summary
The petitioners filed an application invoking the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to quash a Judicial Magistrate's order dated 09.01.2023 that had taken cognizance of offences under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They submitted a compromise deed indicating that the matrimonial dispute had been settled, and they had also filed a petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for mutual‑consent divorce. The opposite party did not object to the compromise. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that criminal cases of a predominantly civil character, especially those arising from family disputes, should be quashed when the parties settle, the Court held that proceeding with the trial would be futile and an abuse of process. Consequently, the Court quashed the magistrate's order and allowed both applications.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between parties in a matrimonial dispute.
- Whether the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to set aside a lower court's order taking cognizance of such offences.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4
- Hindu Marriage Act — s. 13B
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- Section 498A
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- compromise
- inherent jurisdiction
- quashment of criminal proceedings
- family dispute
- mutual consent divorce
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3703 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-395 Year-2021 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - PATNA CITY
District- Patna
======================================================
Shashibhushan, Son of Sri Jayanand Prasad, R/O-Mohalla-Rajiv Nagar Road
No. 16, Plot NO. -9, P.S.- Rajiv Nagar, District Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sudha Kumari, Wife of Shashibhusan, D/O- Sri Pramod Prasad At present
working as Senior Associate Manager in CSR (Corporate Social
Responsibility) of H C L, Foundation, Lucknow, 5th Floor, Saran Chamberl
Jopling road, neer Dham Nirman complex, Hazaratganj, Lucknow U.P. PIN
660022, resident of C/O- Pramod Prasad, near Terighat Mohalla- Khajekala,
P.S.- Khajekhala, Patna City, Distt.- Patna-800008
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 24374 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-395 Year-2021 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
1. Jayanand Prasad, S/o Late Laxmi Narain R/o Mohalla- Rajiv Nagar, Road
No. 16, Thana- Ragiv Nagar, District- Patna
2. Sunita, Devi Wife of Jayanand Prasad R/o Mohalla- Rajiv Nagar, Road No.
16, Thana- Ragiv Nagar, District- Patna
3. Bhushan, S/o Sri Jayanand Prasad Permanent R/o Mohalla- Rajiv Nagar,
Road no. 16, Thana - Ragiv Nagar, District- Patna At present R/o Mohalla-
Bakarganj, Bari Road, Bankipur, P.S.- Pirbahore, Dist.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sudha Kumari, W/o Shashibhusan, D/o Sri Pramod Prasad At present
working as Senior Associate Manager in CSR (Corporate Social
Responsibility) of H C L, Foundation, Lucknow, 5th floor, Saran chamber,
Jopling road, neer Dhan Nirman complex, Hazaratganj, Lucknow U.P. PIN
226600, R/o C/o Pramod Prasad, near Terighat mohalla- Khajekala, P.S.-
Khajekhala, Patna City, Dist.- Patna- 800008
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3703 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3703 of 2025(6) dt.09-02-2026
2/4
For the Opposite Party No.2: Mr. Vinod Pandey, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 24374 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
For the Opposite Party No.2: Mr. Vinod Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
6 09-02-2026 Since both the applications arise out of the same P.S.
they are being heard together and being disposed off by this
common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
3. The present application has been filed by the
petitioners invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Court for quashing the order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna City, Patna in
Complaint Case No.395 of 2021 by which cognizance for the
offence under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has been taken against
the petitioners.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that he has brought on record by way of supplementary
affidavit a compromise entered between the parties. It has been
submitted that the parties have settled the differences, as under
the one time settlement they have also filed a petition under
Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the court of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3703 of 2025(6) dt.09-02-2026
3/4
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, for divorce with
mutual consent and the differences between the parties have
been settled and it has also been decided that the criminal case
pending between the parties is to be disposed off in terms of the
compromise, which finds mentioned in Paragraph 12 (v) of the
joint compromise petition.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does
not dispute such fact of compromise and has submitted that he
does not have any objection to the disposal of the present
application in terms of the compromise.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and taking into account that the present dispute relates to a
matrimonial dispute and the parties have also compromised and
therefore in view of the various judicial pronouncements
especially, the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Narinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of
Punjab and Anr reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, paragraph -29.4
of the same reads as under:
“29.4. On the other hand, those criminal
cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly
civil character, particularly those arising out of
commercial transactions or arising out of
matrimonial relationship or family disputes should
be quashed when the parties have resolved their
entire disputes among themselves.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3703 of 2025(6) dt.09-02-2026
4/4
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Naushey Ali and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78 has observed that in a case where
the parties have amicably settled their dispute the proceeding
with the trial would be futile and it would be a grave abuse of
process of law if the proceedings are not quashed.
8. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements
and settled principle of law, the order dated 09.01.2023 passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna City, Patna in
Complaint Case No.395 of 2021 by which cognizance for the
offence under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has been taken against
the petitioners is quashed.
9. Accordingly, both the applications stand allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
U T
Checking your session…