Patna High Court
PANKAJ KUMAR PANJIYARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the cognizance orders and the criminal proceedings in all three cases.
Summary
The petitioners, members of the same family, filed criminal complaints against each other under IPC sections 341, 323, 324, 504, 506 and 34 arising from a property dispute. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance in three separate cases, but no charges had been framed and the parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement. The petitioners argued that the criminal proceedings were being used as a pressure tactic to settle the civil dispute, invoking Supreme Court precedents on malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The High Court observed that the cognizance orders were mechanically identical and that continuing the trial would serve no useful purpose. Relying on the power under CrPC s.482 and the principles laid down in Md. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, Bhajan Lal, Naushey Ali and Narinder Singh, the Court quashed the cognizance orders and the criminal proceedings. All three applications were allowed, restoring friendly relations between the parties.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of proceeding with criminal trials when the parties have settled the underlying civil dispute.
- Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of the court.
- The applicability of the High Court’s inherent powers under CrPC Section 482 to quash proceedings in cases of malicious prosecution.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 324, 34, 341, 504, 506
Subjects
- family dispute
- property dispute
- malicious prosecution
- quash of criminal proceedings
- settlement
- abuse of process
- Section 482 CrPC
- IPC offences
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53409 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2018 Thana- LAHERIYASARAI District- Darbhanga
======================================================
1. RAMPUKARI DEVI Wife of Late Ram Narayan Panjiyar Resident of
Mohalla- Bakarganj, ward no. 40, P.S- Laheriasarai, Dist- Darbhanga
2. Puja Panjiyar Wife of Niraj Panjiyar Resident of Mohalla- Bakarganj, ward
no. 40, P.S- Laheriasarai, Dist- Darbhanga
3. Madhu Panjiyar Wife of Pankaj Kumar Panjiyar Resident of Mohalla-
Bakarganj, ward no. 40, P.S- Laheriasarai, Dist- Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 34872 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2018 Thana- LAHERIYASARAI District- Darbhanga
======================================================
SUJIT PANJIYAR @SUJIT KRISHNA @MONU SON OF DR. SATISH
PANJIYAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BAKARGANJ NEAR KRISHNA
CHOWK, PO AND PS- LAHERIYASARAI, DISTT- DARBHANGA
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. PANKAJ PANJIYAR SON OF LATE RAM NARAYAN PANJIYAR
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BAKARGANJ, WARD NO. 40, PO AND PS-
LAHERIYASARAI, DISTT- DARBHANGA
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 44425 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2018 Thana- LAHERIYASARAI District- Darbhanga
======================================================
1. PANKAJ KUMAR PANJIYAR Son of Late Ram Narayan Panjiyar Resident
of Mohalla - Bakarganj, Ward No.- 40, P.S.- Laheria Sarai, District -
Darbhanga.
2. Niraj Panjiyar Son of Late Ram Narayan Panjiyar Resident of Mohalla -
Bakarganj, Ward No.- 40, P.S.- Laheria Sarai, District - Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53409 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
2/8
2. Sujit Krishna Son of Dr. Satish Panjiar Resident of Mohalla - Bakarganj,
Ward No.- 40, P.S.- Laheria Sarai, District - Darbhanga.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 53409 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Girish Chandra Jha, Adv.
Mr. Ashish, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Ajay Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the Informant : Mr. Lalit Narayan Jha, Adv.
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 34872 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D.K. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Lalit Narayan Jha, Adv.
For the State : Md. Fahimuddin, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Girish Chandra Jha, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 44425 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Durga Nand Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arun Kr. Pandey, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Lalit Narayan Jha, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-01-2026
All the three cases are being heard together as
parties to the proceedings are same and the matter is arising out
of a common dispute leading to case and counter case.
2. The order under challenge in Cr. Misc. No 53409
of 2022 and Cr. Misc No. 44425 of 2023 is the order dated
23.07.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Darbhanga in connection with Leheriasarai P.S. Case No. 61 of
2018/ C.R.I- 336 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the learned
Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners of both the
cases under sections 341, 323, 324, 504, 506 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) while
the order impugned in Cr. Misc. No. 34872 of 2023 is the order
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53409 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
3/8
dated 09.05.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Darbhanga in connection with Laheriasarai P.S.
Case No. 62 of 2018/C.R.I. – 337 of 2018, whereby and
whereunder cognizance has also been taken against the
petitioners in the said case under sections 341, 323, 324, 504,
506 and 34 of IPC.
3. Heard Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned Senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners along with learned
counsel Mr. Girish Chandra Jha in Cr. Misc. No. 53409 of 2022
and learned counsel Mr. Durganand Jha in Cr. Misc. 44425 of
2023 respectively and Mr Lalit Narayan Jha, learned counsel
appearing for opposite party no. 02 in both the abovementioned
cases. Learned counsel Mr. Lalit Narayan Jha appearing for the
petitioner and learned Senior Counsel Mr. D.K. Sinha appearing
for opposite party no. 02 and learned APP for the State, in Cr.
Misc. No 34872 of 2025 were also heard.
4. The instant cases arise out of a dispute having
taken place between the members of the same family, for which
cases have been filed against each other with almost same
allegations, one being Laheriasarai P.S. Case No. 61 of 2018 and
another being Laheriasarai P.S. Case No. 62 of 2018.
5. It has been submitted by Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53409 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
4/8
Senior counsel for the petitioners in one set of the cases that the
basis of cases against each other is with regard to property
dispute between the petitioners and the opposite parties inter-se
and only with a view to settling scores with each other and
pressurizing the parties to settle the civil dispute, the present
criminal cases have been filed against each other. Learned
Senior Counsel has referred to a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Md. Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar &
Anr. reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751, wherein it has been held
that there is growing tendency of civil cases being given the
colour of criminal offence and the Court should always ensure
that proceedings before it are not used for the purpose of settling
personal scores or be used as pressure tactics to settles civil
disputes. He has also referred to the case of State of Haryana &
Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 to
contend that the present case falls within one of the categories
of malicious prosecution.
6. Mr. Lalit Narayan Jha, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of opposite party no. 02 in the aforesaid two cases
where order under challenge is the order dated 09.05.2022 does
not have any objection if the said order taking cognizance and
the criminal proceedings arising therefrom are quashed as per
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53409 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
5/8
instruction from opposite party no. 02 as both parties are related
and both have filed cases against each other. At the same time,
in order to restore peaceful relations between parties, the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for opposite party no. 02 in the
criminal case arising out of Laheriasarai P.S. Case No. 61 of
2018, also does not have any objections if the order taking
cognizance dated 23/07/2022 and criminal proceedings arising
therefrom stand quashed.
7. Besides the above submissions, this Court has
noticed that cognizance order dated 23.07.2022 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 53409 of 2022 and Cr. Misc. No. 44425 of 2023 and
cognizance order dated 09.05.2022 in Cr. Misc. No. 34872 of
2023 are verbatim same with the inclusions of the same
sections, demonstrating mechanical approach of the Court while
issuing summons against all accused persons.
8. This Court has also been informed that the
present cases are at the stage of framing of charge and till date
charges have not been framed. In the peculiar situation of the
cases where the parties to the proceedings are ready to settle the
dispute amongst themselves and do not wish to proceed further
with respect to cases filed against each other, no useful purpose
would be served by continuing the proceedings related to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53409 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
6/8
present cases.
9. Taking into consideration the present factum of
compromise in order to restore good relations between the
parties and also taking into consideration the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Naushey Ali vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78 when the parties
have amicably resolved the dispute, proceeding with the trial
would be an exercise in futility and the ends of justice require
that the settlement be given effect to by quashing the proceeding
as continuance of the same would be a grave abuse of the
process of Court, particularly when the dispute is settled and
resolved and would only prolong bitterness between the parties
and needlessly burden the justice system. Earlier, in the case of
Narinder Singh vs State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC
466 certain principles have been laid down by which the High
Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the
settlement between the parties and exercising its powers under
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to
as Cr.P.C.) while accepting the settlement and quashing the
proceedings. Paragraph no.29 of the said judgment is quoted
here-in-below for ready reference :
“…. 29.2. When the parties have reached the
settlement and on that basis petition for quashing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53409 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
7/8
the criminal proceedings is filed, the guided factor
in such cases would be to secure :
i. ends of justice, or
ii. to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
……………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………...
…. 29.6. Offences under section 307 IPC would
fall in category of heinous and serious offences
and therefore are to be generally treated as crime
against the society and not against the individual
alone. However, the High Court would not rest its
decision merely because there is a mention of
Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed
under this provision. It would be open to the High
Court to examine as to whether incorporation of
Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the
prosecution has collected sufficient evidence,
which if proved, would lead to proving the charge
under by nature of injury sustained, whether such
injury is inflicted on the vital/ delicate parts of the
body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report
in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can
generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this
prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine
as to whether there is a strong possibility of
conviction or the chances of conviction are remote
and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to
accept the settlement and quash the criminal
proceedings whereas in the latter case would be
permissible for the High Court to accept the plea
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53409 of 2022 dt.29-01-2026
8/8
compounding the offence based on complete
settlement between the parties. At this stage, the
Court can also be swayed by the fact that the
settlement between the parties is going to result in
harmony between them which may improve their
future relationship. ……… ”
10. Thus, in the interest of justice, for restoring
friendly ties and following legal principles as laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court would proceed to quash both
the impugned orders dated 23.05.2022 and 09.05.2022 passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in
connection with Laheriasarai P.S. Case No. 61 of 2018/ C.R.I –
336/2018 and Laheriasarai P.S. Case No. 62 of 2018/ C.R.I –
337/2018 respectively, as also the criminal proceedings arising
out of these orders are hereby quashed.
11. Accordingly, all the three applications being Cr.
Misc. No. 53409 of 2022, Cr. Misc. No. 34872 of 2023 and Cr.
Misc. No. 44425 of 2023 stand allowed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 03.02.2026
Transmission Date 03.02.2026
Checking your session…