Patna High Court
Dinendranath MowarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The High Court quashed the FIR, holding that the settlement and the civil nature of the dispute justified the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to dismiss the criminal proceedings.
Summary
The petitioners, Dinendranath Mowar and Mritunjay Mowar, sought to quash an FIR registered under sections 109, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. after they entered into a compromise with the informant, who is their relative. The compromise was filed before the trial court, and the petitioners argued that the dispute was a personal family rivalry without public interest. The High Court examined the Supreme Court’s guidelines on the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., particularly the cases of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Naushey Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh. It held that where parties have amicably settled a dispute that is essentially civil or family in nature, quashing the criminal proceeding serves the ends of justice and prevents abuse of process. Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR and allowed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a settlement between parties in a family dispute warrants quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- Whether the offences alleged under sections 109, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. are of a civil character such that the trial would be futile.
- Whether quashing the FIR would serve the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the court process.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109, 3(5), 351(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- quash
- settlement
- inherent jurisdiction
- Section 482 CrPC
- family dispute
- abuse of process
- ends of justice
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45062 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2025 Thana- MANIHARI District- Katihar
======================================================
1. Dinendranath Mowar S/o- Late Harendra Mowar R/V- Bhagwati Sthan Ward
No- 5 PS- Manihari Dist-Katihar
2. Mritunjay Mowar @ Gagan Kumar Mowar s/o- Dinendranath Mowar R/V-
Bhagwati Sthan Ward No- 5 PS- Manihari Dist-Katihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Prakash Mowar S/o- Gorendranath Mowar R/V- Bhagwati Sthan Ward No- 5
PS- Manihari Dist-Katihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Priyanka Singh, Adovcate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Gauri Shankar Gupta, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 05-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing
the F.I.R. being Manihari P.S. Case No. 24 of 2025 dated
30.01.2025 lodged against the petitioners for the offences under
sections 109, 351(2), and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the respective
parties submitted that the parties have entered into a
compromise and a petition to such effect has been filed before
the learned trial court.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
parties that good sense has prevailed and the parties have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45062 of 2025(3) dt.05-02-2026
2/4
entered into compromise on the fact that the petitioners are the
own agnates being the uncle and cousin of the informant. It has
further been submitted that in view of the fact that this was a
personal rivalry which has led to lodging of the F.I.R. and it
does not shake the public conscience, as far as the offences
alleged are concerned.
5. It has next been submitted that in view of the
settled principle of law as decided 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, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has given the guidelines and laid down
the principles by which the High Court would be guided in
giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties
and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., while
accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings all in the
alternative refusing to accept the settlement which direction to
continue with the criminal proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court further elaborated that when the parties have reached the
settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal
proceeding is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to
secure:
(I) ends of justice,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45062 of 2025(3) dt.05-02-2026
3/4
(II) to prevent abuse of the process
of any court.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
paragraph 29.4 observed 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.”
6. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab
reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held that the High Court invoking its inherent power may quash
the criminal proceedings if it is satisfied that on the face of such
settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being
convicted and if the criminal proceedings are not quashed,
justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.
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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45062 of 2025(3) dt.05-02-2026
4/4
8. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements
and settled principle of law, the F.I.R arising out of Manihari
P.S. Case No. 24 of 2025 for the offences under sections 109,
351(2), and 3(5) of the B.N.S. is hereby quashed.
9. Accordingly, the present application stands
allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
U
Checking your session…