Patna High Court
Kamal Kishore PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The High Court quashed the FIR as the dispute was settled and the offences were of a civil nature, making continuation of the criminal proceeding an abuse of process.
Summary
Petitioners Kamal Kishore Prasad and Panka Kumar filed an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash an FIR registered for alleged fraud in a property transaction, involving payments, conversion of leasehold to freehold, and threats. They submitted a settlement agreement, arguing that continuation of the criminal case would be an abuse of process. The Court examined its inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, referring to the principles laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasizing that offences of a predominantly civil or commercial nature may be quashed when the parties have settled. Considering the nature of the alleged offences and the full settlement, the Court held that the FIR should be quashed. The application was allowed, and the FIR was set aside.
Issues considered
- The High Court's power under Section 528 BNSS to quash an FIR when the parties have settled the dispute.
- Whether the offences alleged (sections 316, 318, 338, 336, 340, 3(5) BNS) are of a civil/commercial nature permitting quash despite settlement.
- Whether the gravity of the alleged offences precludes the exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316, 318, 336, 338, 340, 3(5)
Subjects
- quash of FIR
- inherent jurisdiction
- settlement agreement
- civil nature offences
- abuse of process
- property fraud
- BNSS
- BNS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63135 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-206 Year-2025 Thana- RAMPUR District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Kamal Kishore Prasad Son of Sh. Yadunandan Prasad R/o 166, S-03, Gyan
Khand - 1, Indirapuram, Shipra Sun City, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, 201014.
2. Panka Kumar Son of Sh. Kamal Kishore Prasad R/o 166, S-03, Gyan Khand
- 1, Indirapuram, Shipra Sun City, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, 201014.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Mr. Santosh Kumar Son of Avadh Kishore Prasad R/o Mohalla Imliyachak,
P.S. - Rampur, Dist. - Gaya, Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Kumar Bubna, Advocate
Mr. Vikalp Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, APP
For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Satyaveer Jha, Advocate
======================================================
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 present application has been filed under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Surakasha Sanhita, 2023(hereinafter
referred to as “BNSS”) seeking quashing of the FIR bearing Rampur
P.S. Case No. 206 of 2025 dated 29.04.2025 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 316, 318, 338, 336, 340 and 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as
“BNS”) and all consequent proceedings emanating therefrom.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63135 of 2025 dt.19-01-2026
2/5
3. Prosecution case, in brief, as per informant is that an
agreement between the informant and Smt. Madhuri Devi @
Madhuri Nayan was made for the purpose of one property for a total
consideration amount of Rs. 70,00,000/-, Pursuant thereto, an MOU
was allegedly executed between Madhuri Devi and the informant
and an initial sum of Rs. 14,50,000/- was paid by the informant to
the said individuals on the same date. On 09.04.2009, the petitioner
No. 1 has prepared an unregistered power of attorney in favour of
Dr. Ramavatar Singh and Smt. Anju Singh for limited purposes. It is
alleged in the FIR that Dr. Ramavatar Singh and Mrs Anju Singh
handed over the original unregistered power of attorney dated
09.04.2009 to the informant. It is further alleged that between
18.11.2020 to 05.03.2024, the informant is stated to have made
further payments to Smt. Madhuri Devi @ Madhuri Nayan, both in
cash and through cheques, aggregating to Rs. 53,32,000/- towards
the agreed sale consideration. At the time of execution of the said
agreement, Smt. Madhuri Devi is stated to have assured the
informant that the aforesaid property belongs to the petitioner No.1
and that she had acquired ownership thereof from Dr. Ramavatar
Singh and Smt. Anju Singh. Thereafter it is alleged that Smt.
Madhuri Devi, Dr. Ramavatar Singh, Sh. Rajiv Nayan, Smt. Anju
Singh and Sri Jay Prakash Nayan took informant to the residence of
petitioner No.1 where both the petitioners were present and during
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63135 of 2025 dt.19-01-2026
3/5
the said meeting it is stated that Smt. Madhuri Devi and others
proposed that the property be converted into freehold for which an
amount of Rs. 7,25,000/- would have to be deposited online and
further sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- be paid to the petitioner No.1, only
thereafter the said property would be transferred in favour of
informant. On 07.10.2023, the informant has paid the said amount in
cash to the petitioner and his son and on the same day the original
allotment letter and original lease deed pertaining to the said
property were allegedly handed over to the informant. On
08.12.2023 Rs. 4,00,000/- and on 11.12.2023 Rs. 3,25,000/- was sent
to the account of accused petitioner No.1 through R.T.G.S. towards
the payment of the conversion fee required for converting the
leasehold property into freehold. The petitioner No.1 thereafter
remitted the said amount to the Bihar State Housing Board (BSHB).
On 11.12.2024, the informant came to know that the petitioner No.1
has collected the registered documents from the Bihar State Housing
Board. On 19.01.2025 when informant visited the residence of the
petitioner in Gaziabad, both the accused persons threatened him with
dire consequences and categorically refused to execute the sale deed
in his favour.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits
that he has brought the settlement agreement on record through a
supplementary affidavit. It has been submitted that settlement has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63135 of 2025 dt.19-01-2026
4/5
been arrived between the parties and therefore continuation of the
present proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.
5. It has been submitted that in view of the settled law as
enumerated in case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in
(2012) 10 SCC 303, paragraph -61 of the same reads as under:
“61. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarised thus : the power of the High
Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or
complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct
and different from the power given to a criminal court for
compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code.
Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory
limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the
guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the
ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any
court. In what cases power to quash the criminal
proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the
offender and the victim have settled their dispute would
depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no
category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of
such power, the High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious
offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the
victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the
dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a
serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise
between the victim and the offender in relation to the
offences under special statutes like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public
servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot
provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings
involving such offences. But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on
a different footing for the purposes of quashing,
particularly the offences arising from commercial,
financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony
relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the
wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the
parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category
of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise
between the offender and the victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the
criminal case would put the accused to great oppression
and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him
by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete
settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63135 of 2025 dt.19-01-2026
5/5
the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or
contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the
criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law
despite settlement and compromise between the victim and
the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it
is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if
the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the
High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceeding.”
6. In case of Narinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of
Punjab and Anr reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, paragraph -29.4 of
the same reads 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.”
7. In view of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, the
continuation of the criminal proceedings between the parties would
amount to abuse of the process of law and as such the FIR bearing
Rampur P.S. Case No. 206 of 2025 is, hereby, quashed.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
krishna/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 27.01.2026
Transmission Date 27.01.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.