Patna High Court
Kashi Nath JhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The High Court quashed the entire criminal proceeding, holding that continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Summary
The petitioners, who are the father‑in‑law, mother‑in‑law and husband of the complainant, sought to quash criminal proceedings filed under Sections 498A, 341, 323, 504, 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act relating to alleged dowry harassment. The complainant (OP No.2) had earlier lodged the FIR but later, after a compromise in 2017, testified that she was living happily with her husband and did not wish to pursue the case. Both the petitioners and the complainant did not oppose the application, and the trial court had continued the case, even issuing a non‑bailable warrant. The High Court examined Supreme Court precedents on settlement of matrimonial disputes and the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process. Finding that the parties had resolved their differences and that continuation of the trial would serve no purpose, the Court quashed the entire criminal proceeding.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for alleged dowry harassment and related offences can be quashed when the parties have reached a compromise and the complainant no longer wishes to pursue the case.
- Whether the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of process in matrimonial disputes involving non‑compoundable offences.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 498A, 504
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- criminal procedure
- settlement
- Section 482
- abuse of process
- matrimonial dispute
- non‑compoundable offences
- quashing of criminal proceedings
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58554 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-13 Year-2014 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Kashi Nath Jha S/o Late Yadubanshi Jha Resident of village- B9 CISF
Camp, P.S.- Indirapuram, Dist- Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh at present resident
of Flat No. 710, Neelkanth Apartment, Kaushambi Sahibabad, Distt-
Ghaziabad, U.P. PIN- 201010
2. Bachhi Devi @ Bachhi Jha W/o Kashi Nath Jha Resident of village- B9
CISF Camp, P.S.- Indirapuram, Dist- Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh at present
resident of Flat No. 710, Neelkanth Apartment, Kaushambi Sahibabad,
Distt- Ghaziabad, U.P. PIN- 201010
3. Durga Nand Jha S/o Kashi Nath Jha Resident of village- B9 CISF Camp,
P.S.- Indirapuram, Dist- Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh at present resident of Flat
No. 710, Neelkanth Apartment, Kaushambi Sahibabad, Distt- Ghaziabad,
U.P. PIN- 201010
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Radha Jha W/o Durga Nand Jha, D/o Indra Kant Jha Resident of village- B9
CISF Camp, P.S.- Indirapuram, Dist- Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh at present
resident of Flat No. 710, Neelkanth Apartment, Kaushambi Sahibabad,
Distt- Ghaziabad, U.P. PIN- 201010
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raja Ram Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-01-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioners have preferred this application to
quash the entire proceedings pending in connection with
Madhubani Mahila P.S. Case No. 13 of 2014 dated 10.02.2014,
GR No. 391/2014, TR No. 4045/2015, registered for the offences
under Sections 498-A, 341, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58554 of 2025 dt.19-01-2026
2/8
Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the court of
the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani.
3. The facts giving rise to the present application is to
the effect that the O.P. No. 2 filed a case before Madhubani Mahila
Police Station alleging that she was married to petitioner no. 3,
Durga Nand Jha on 17.06.2010. It has been alleged that initially
the informant was kept well by her in-laws and her husband
thereafter her in-laws and her husband started torturing her for
non-fulfillment of dowry. It has further been alleged that petitioner
no. 3, her husband left her at her village and since then she has
been residing with her mother.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the
petitioners are father-in-law, mother-in-law and the husband of
O.P. No. 2. It has been submitted that after investigation the police
had submitted charge sheet against the petitioners for offences
under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections
3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It has been submitted that in the
year 2017, the parties have entered into the compromise and the
petitioners were granted bail and the O.P. No. 2 and the petitioner
no. 3 re-started their conjugal life.
5. It has been submitted that the petitioners earlier
moved for quashing of the FIR bearing Madhubani Mahila P.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58554 of 2025 dt.19-01-2026
3/8
Case No. 13 of 2014 by filing Cr. Misc. No. 20668 of 2015 but the
same stood dismissed by order dated 23.06.2015 and thereafter the
petitioners again moved for quashing of the order taking
cognizance but the same was also withdrawn to raise the issues at
an appropriate stage.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the
compromise petition, which has been brought as Annexure-P5, has
stated that the petitioner no. 3 and the informant/O.P. No. 2 are
living happily in Delhi and have three children. It has also been
submitted that the deposition of the O.P. No. 2 was recorded in the
trial on 30.07.2018, wherein she has categorically stated that she is
residing with her husband and she is not willing to contest the case
and she will not produce any further evidence in this case but
despite the compromise and the said evidence on record the
proceeding of the case before the learned Trial Court is still
proceeding which amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that petitioner
no. 1 is a retired personnel from CISF, while petitioner no. 3 is an
employee in National Human Rights Commission in Delhi.
7. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that in view of the present situation where the parties
have resolved their differences by filing a compromise petition
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58554 of 2025 dt.19-01-2026
4/8
indicating therein that due to interference of well-wishers an
amicable settlement has been reached between the parties and the
informant has been residing and living a happy life with her
husband and children for the last eight years, the continuation of
the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but an
abuse of the process of law and no useful purpose will be served to
continue with the same.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2
does not dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the petitioners and submits that the petitioner no. 3 and the O.P.
No. 2 are living happily as husband and wife along with their three
children. It has also been submitted that the O.P. No. 2 is not
interested in pursuing the criminal proceedings and from the
perusal of the entire order-sheet, it would be evident that even the
informant/O.P. No. 2 has not been appearing before the learned
Trial Court, however, the learned Trial Court has continued on
with the said proceedings and has, in fact, recently even cancelled
the bail-bonds of the petitioners and has issued non-bailable
warrant of arrest. However, the O.P. No. 2 does not oppose the
present application of the petitioners filed before this Court for
quashing the entire proceedings.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58554 of 2025 dt.19-01-2026
5/8
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 as well as learned APP for the
State, this Court is reminded of the various judicial
pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and one
passed 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,
(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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58554 of 2025 dt.19-01-2026
6/8
commercial transactions or arising out of
matrimonial relationship or family disputes should
be quashed when the parties have resolved their
entire disputes among themselves.”
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent case of
Mange Ram and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.
(2025 INSC 962), after referring to the earlier judgments on the
issues of family members of the husband being unnecessarily
roped into criminal proceedings in matrimonial discord has further
laid down that continuation of criminal proceedings in a case
where the parties have entered into compromise, even if the case is
of non-compoundable offences, especially in matters of
matrimony, it would only be an exercise in futility and the justice
demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and
peace is restored.
12. 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.
13. It is relevant to point out here that in the present case
the informant/O.P. No. 2, during her deposition has categorically
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58554 of 2025 dt.19-01-2026
7/8
stated that she is residing with her husband and she does not wish
to contest the present case.
14. 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.
15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case and taking into account the submissions made on behalf
of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that in the event
of restitution of conjugal rights between the parties, after a
compromise having been entered between them, the continuation
of criminal proceedings would serve no purpose especially for the
fact that the result of the trial is a foregone conclusion and there is
no dispute between the parties alive.
16. Accordingly, this Court in order to bring quietus to
the personal dispute between the parties, as they have settled
amongst themselves, this Court invoking the inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is of the opinion that continuation
of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of the process
of the court and, therefore, the entire proceedings arising out of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58554 of 2025 dt.19-01-2026
8/8
Madhubani Mahila P.S. Case No. 13 of 2014 dated 10.02.2014,
GR No. 391/2014, TR No. 4045/2015 is, hereby, quashed as
against the petitioners.
17. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
krishna/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 22.01.2026
Transmission Date 22.01.2026
Checking your session…