Patna High Court
VIJAY KUMAR SINGHversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the FIR, holding that the private, settled nature of the dispute justified exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to dismiss the proceedings.
Summary
Vijay Kumar Singh, a builder, entered into a development agreement with landowner Surendra Kumar Singh and was later accused of fraud, leading to an FIR under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The parties subsequently reached a voluntary compromise, filing a joint affidavit stating that the dispute was settled amicably. The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR, arguing that the matter was civil in nature and that continuation of criminal proceedings would be futile. The Court examined its inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC, citing precedents that allow quashing of even non‑compoundable offences when the parties have settled. Relying on judgments of the Supreme Court and the Apex Court, the High Court held that justice required the FIR to be dismissed. Consequently, the application for quashing was allowed and the FIR was set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether an FIR for offences that are non‑compoundable can be quashed under the inherent powers of the High Court when the parties have amicably settled the private dispute.
- Whether Section 482 CrPC permits the Court to dismiss criminal proceedings that are essentially civil in character and would result in a futile exercise of judicial resources.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 406, 420, 465, 468, 471
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- quash of FIR
- Section 482 CrPC
- private dispute
- settlement
- non‑compoundable offence
- civil nature of dispute
- builder fraud
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40509 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-52 Year-2023 Thana- SHASTRINAGAR District- Patna
======================================================
Vijay Kumar Singh Son Of Surendra Kumar Singh Resident Of House No 62
Road No 4 Rajeev Nagar, Ps- Rajiv Nagar, District- Patna, Designated Partner
Of Aditya Niwas Developers Llp, A Body Corporate Having Registered
Office At Road No. -4, Rajiv Nagar, Ps- Rajiv Nagar, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Surendra Kumar Singh Son Of Late Prithvi Raj Singh Resident Of Lallu
Seth Chowk, Sarvodaya Nagar, A.G. Colony, Ps- Shastri Nagar, District-
Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Apurva Harsh, Adv.
Mr. Manu Tripurari, Adv.
Ms. Jaya Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
7 31-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing
of the FIR Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 52 of 2023, dated
13.01.2023 lodged under the provisions of Sections 406, 420,
465, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The short facts of the case arising out of the written
report is that in the year 2018, the petitioner, who is a builder,
had proposed to build a residential premises on a plot of land
belonging to the O.P. No. 2 and had got a development
agreement registered in the year 2019. It has been alleged that at
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40509 of 2023(7) dt.31-01-2026
2/5
the time of getting the agreement registered, the petitioner had
assured of getting work completed within six years but he
defrauded the informant and caused wrongful loss to him by
producing forged documents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the present case arises out of a dispute between the builder
and the land owner and the F.I.R. has been lodged making false
and baseless allegation against the petitioner. It has further been
submitted that the dispute is civil in nature, entails civil
consequences, and that despite the availability of alternative
remedies, a shortcut method of filing a criminal case has been
employed.
5. Be that as it may, further submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner relates to the fact that parties to the
proceedings have compromised the matter and affidavit to such
effect has been filed by both sides and the supplementary
affidavit dated 16.6.2025 has been filed in the form of a joint
affidavit bearing signature of both the petitioners and the O.P.
No. 2. It has been clearly stated in the said affidavit that both the
parties have compromised the matter willingly, voluntarily and
happily without any undue pressure or coercion and good
relations have been restored. On account of joint compromise,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40509 of 2023(7) dt.31-01-2026
3/5
the parties have, thus, settled their dispute/grievances amicably
and now both of them do not want to proceed further in the
present case or any other case lodged against each other. A list
of cases has also been enumerated in the paragraph number 8 of
the said affidavit and the present case which is Shastri Nagar
P.S. Case No. 52 of 2023, dated 13.01.2023, features under the
clause A of paragraph 8.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2
supports the factum of compromise between the parties and has
no objection if the criminal prosecution arising out of the said
FIR is quashed.
7. The issue with regard to quashing of criminal
proceedings with respect to offenses which are private in nature,
which have no serious impact on society, involving
settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, has
been settled by various judicial pronouncements to the extent
that even non-compoundable offense can be quashed by
exercising the power of 482 Cr.P.C. Such fact has been clearly
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex in the case of Gian Singh Vs.
State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein it has
been held that High Court within the framework of its inherent
power upon coming to a finding that continuation of such
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40509 of 2023(7) dt.31-01-2026
4/5
criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility and justice
in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to
an end and peace is restored, ought to be exercised and by not
quashing such criminal proceedings, justice itself would become
a casualty.
8. This Court would also gainfully refer to a judgment
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Naushey Ali vs. State of
U.P., reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78 wherein it has been observed
that in cases where parties have amicably resolved their dispute,
the ends of justice require that any such settlement between the
parties must be given effect to by quashing of the proceedings.
The fact that a criminal proceedings involving disputes which
are overwhelmingly and civil in character arising out of private
transactions, where the parties have amicably resolved their
disputes, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down even very
recently in the case of Mange Ram Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and Anr. [2025 INSC 962] and also in case of Suresh
C. Singal & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (Cr. Appeal No.
3862 of 2024), that such criminal proceedings should not allow
to be continued.
9. Taking into consideration the fact that the present
case involves a private dispute between the parties which has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40509 of 2023(7) dt.31-01-2026
5/5
now been settled and in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the present application for quashing of FIR i.e.
Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 52 of 2023, dated 13.01.2023 is
allowed and the present F.I.R, which is under challenge, is
quashed.
10. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-
U T
Checking your session…