Patna High Court
Rashid Mallick @ Md Rashid HussainversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The High Court quashed the orders of cognizance and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners on the ground of a valid compromise settlement.
Summary
The petitioners, members of one branch of a family, were charged in two criminal cases arising from an altercation with a relative, Alam Mallick, involving offences under various sections of the IPC. They filed applications under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court seeking quash of the orders of cognizance dated 25‑02‑2025. Both parties later entered into a compromise settlement, which was filed as annexure and affirmed by the opposite party. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of criminal proceedings when a genuine settlement resolves a civil‑family dispute and to prevent abuse of process, the Court examined the validity of the compromise. The Court held that the settlement was bona‑fide and that continuing the prosecutions would be futile. Consequently, the orders of cognizance and the entire criminal proceedings in both cases were quashed. Both applications were allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on the basis of a compromise settlement in a family dispute.
- Whether the compromise is sufficient to prevent abuse of the judicial process and to secure the ends of justice.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 325, 34, 341, 504, 506
Subjects
- quash
- compromise settlement
- Section 482
- family dispute
- criminal proceedings
- inherent jurisdiction
- abuse of process
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58110 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2024 Thana- PAKARIBARAW District- Nawada
======================================================
1. Rashid Mallick @ Md Rashid Hussain, S/O Aurangzeb Mallick @
Aurangzeeb R/O Vill.- Rais, P.S.- Pakaribarawan, Dist.- Nawada.
2. Nazish Mallick, S/O Ekram R/O Vill.- Rais, P.S.- Pakaribarawan, Dist.-
Nawada.
3. Md. Kaif @ Md. Kaif Alam, S/O Irshad Alam R/O Vill.- Rais, P.S.-
Pakaribarawan, Dist.- Nawada.
4. Md. Zaid @ Md Zaid Alam, S/O Irshad Alam R/O Vill.- Rais, P.S.-
Pakaribarawan, Dist.- Nawada.
5. Humayun @ Humayun Akhtar @ Himayun, S/O Late Ainul Haque @ Md
Aenamul Haque R/O Vill.- Rais, P.S.- Pakaribarawan, Dist.- Nawada.
6. Jehangir @ Md Jhangir Haque, S/O Late Ainul Haque @ Md Aenamul
Haque R/O Vill.- Rais, P.S.- Pakaribarawan, Dist.- Nawada.
7. Shahid @ Md Sahid Mallik, S/O Jegangir @ Md Jhangir Haque R/O Vill.-
Rais, P.S.- Pakaribarawan, Dist.- Nawada.
8. Kashif Mallick @ Md Kashif Zeb, S/O Aurangzed Mallick @ Aurangzeb
R/O Vill.- Rais, P.S.- Pakaribarawan, Dist.- Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Alam Mallick, S/O Late Ainul Haque R/O Vill.- Rice, P.S.- Pakaribarawan,
Dist.- Nawada.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 45029 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2024 Thana- PAKARIBARAW District- Nawada
======================================================
1. Md. Habibul Rahaman @ Habibul Rahaman, S/O Late Usman R/O Village-
Raies, P.S- Pakaribarawan, Distt.- Nawada.
2. Danish Raza, S/O Mustafa R/O Village- Raies, P.S- Pakaribarawan, Distt.-
Nawada.
3. Tasleem Raza, S/O Late Ayub R/O Village- Raies, P.S- Pakaribarawan,
Distt.- Nawada.
4. Md. Abutalib @ Abutalib, S/O Alam Meer R/O Village- Raies, P.S-
Pakaribarawan, Distt.- Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58110 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
2/9
2. Aurangzeb, S/O Ainul Haque, R/O Village- Raees, P.S- Pakaribarawan,
Dist.- Nawada.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 58110 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Singh, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 45029 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Gauri Shankar Gupta, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 22-01-2026
Since both the applications arose from case and
counter case between the parties, they are heard together and
disposed off by this common judgment.
2. Both the applications have been filed by the
petitioners invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Court for quashing the order of cognizance passed by the
learned Trial Court.
Cr. Misc. No.58110 of 2025:
3. The application bearing Cr. Misc. No. 58110 of
2025 has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.02.2025
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II,
Nawada in Pakribarawan P.S. Case No.31 of 2024 by which
cognizance for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325,
307, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58110 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
3/9
against the petitioners.
4. The brief facts of Cr. Misc. No. 58110 of 2025 is
that the FIR named accused persons including the petitioners,
namely, Rashid Mallick @ Rashid Hussain, Nazish Mallick,
Md. Kaif @ Md. Kaif Alam, Md. Zaid @ Zaid Alam, Humayun
@ Humayun Akhtar @ Himayun, Jehangir @ Md Jhangir
Haque, Shahid @ Md. Sahid Mallik and Kashif Mallick @ Md.
Kashif Zeb surrounded the opposite party no.2 (Alam Mallick)
and started abusing him and on protest, they assaulted him.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners in Cr.
Misc. No. 58110 of 2025 without going into the merits of the
case has drawn the attention of this Court towards Annexure P-4
series, whereby the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 have
compromised the dispute between them. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the present case in which the order
impugned has been passed is an outcome of an altercation
between two immediate agnates for an incident which took
place on 13.01.2024 in the evening. It has further been
submitted that altogether 15 persons of the entire family have
been implicated in this case. Out of the 15 named accused
persons, the case was found to be true only against 7 out of
those 15 and the allegations levelled against the remaining 8
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58110 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
4/9
accused persons were found to be false. It has next been
submitted that genesis of the present incident is an old case
wherein the driver of the co-accused, Aurangzeb Malick, was
abused and assaulted by the family members of opposite party
no.2 on 11.01.2024 and for the same one, Pakaribarawan P.S.
Case No. 24 of 2024 was instituted.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that with the intervention of family and well-wishers,
good sense has prevailed between the parties and they have
entered into a compromise by putting their respective signatures
and a compromise petition has been duly filed in the Court of
competent jurisdiction and the same has been brought on record
by way of Annexure P-4 series.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the opposite party no.2 and others have also filed Cr. Misc.
No.45029 of 2025 for quashing of the order taking cognizance
dated 25.02.2025 rising out of Pakaribarawan P.S. Case No. 30
of 2024 lodged against the family of opposite party and others.
It has been contended by the learned counsel that with the
compromise between the parties, the quashing application
preferred by the family of the opposite party no.2 which has
been tagged along with the present case, may be heard and on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58110 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
5/9
the basis of such compromise, the two cases may be quashed.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does
not dispute the factum of compromise and he has further stated
that he has also brought the compromise petition on record by
way of supplementary affidavit in the case preferred by the
family of opposite party no.2 being Cr. Misc. No. 45029 of
2025. It has been submitted that in view of the aforesaid
compromise the parties have already agreed that they do not
have any grievance left against each other and taking into
account that the dispute primarily relates to a family dispute and
therefore the two applications which are being heard together
may be allowed.
9. Learned counsel for the parties have submitted
that in view of the judgment rendered 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 or in the
alternative refusing to accept the settlement with a direction to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58110 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
6/9
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,
(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.”
10. It has been submitted that 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 jurisdiction 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.
Cr. Misc. No. 45029 of 2025:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58110 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
7/9
11. The application bearing Cr. Misc. No. 45029 of
2025 has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.02.2025
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II,
Nawada in Pakaribarawan P.S. Case No.30 of 2024 by which
cognizance for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341,
323, 324, 325, 307, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code has been
taken against the petitioners.
12. The brief facts of Cr. Misc. No. 45029 of 2025
is that the informant of the present case had lodged an FIR
against the petitioners against eleven named persons who are
said to have entered the house of the informant and assaulted
and have snatched away gold ornaments etc.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the police, after investigation, submitted final form against
seven persons, while charge-sheet was filed only against four
accused persons.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner, without
going into the merits of the case, submits that the two sides have
compromised and the said compromise petition has been filed
through a supplementary affidavit, which has been brought on
record and in terms of such compromise, the parties do not want
to pursue the matter any further and hence the case lodged by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58110 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
8/9
the side of the petitioners, which has been challenged in the
connected application being Cr. Misc. No. 58110 of 2025 may
be allowed on the ground of compromise.
15. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2
submits that he does not oppose the present application in view
of the compromise entered between the parties and submits that
the present application may also be disposed of along with the
connected Cr. Misc. No. 58110 of 2025.
Observation:
16. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and taking into account the factum of compromise as also the
various judicial pronouncements, including the one passed by
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, wherein it has been observed that in a case where the parties
have amicably settled their dispute, the proceedings with the
trial would be futile and it would be a grave abuse of the process
of law if the proceedings were not quashed.
17. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders
dated 25.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-II, Nawada in Pakribarawan P.S. Case No.31
of 2024 and Pakaribarawan P.S. Case No.30 of 2024 as well as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58110 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
9/9
the entire criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of said
cases, are hereby quashed as against the petitioners.
18. Both the applications stand allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 06.02.2026
Transmission Date 06.02.2026
Checking your session…