Patna High Court
Sudhanshu ShekharversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The High Court quashed the FIR and allowed the petition for quashing, holding that the settlement precludes continuation of the criminal proceedings.
Summary
The petitioners, comprising Sudhanshu Shekhar, his father Chandrashekhar Singh and mother Pushpa Devi, filed an application to quash FIR No. 434 of 2025 registered at Rajiv Nagar Police Station for offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 85, 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bihar Negotiable Statutes, 2023. They claimed that the dispute was matrimonial in nature and that a Settlement‑cum‑Compromise Petition had been filed on 1 August 2025, with the wife (Smita Singh, O.P. No.2) now residing with the petitioner and unwilling to pursue the case. The respondent’s counsel did not contest the settlement. Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court held that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process. Consequently, the FIR was quashed and the petition for quashing was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal proceeding for offences alleged in the FIR can be quashed on the basis of a settlement‑cum‑compromise between the parties.
- Whether the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of law in such matrimonial disputes.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- settlement
- compromise petition
- quash of FIR
- Section 482 CrPC
- abuse of process
- matrimonial dispute
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64492 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-434 Year-2025 Thana- RAJIVNAGAR District- Patna
======================================================
1. Sudhanshu Shekhar S/O Chandrashekhar Singh R/O Mohalla -
Raghunathpur, Ward No. 29 (Near Bhaskar ITI), P.S- Raghunathpur,
District- East Champaran (Bihar).
2. Chandrashekhar Singh S/O Dudhnath Singh R/O Mohalla - Raghunathpur,
Ward No. 29 (Near Bhaskar ITI), P.S- Raghunathpur, District- East
Champaran (Bihar).
3. Pushpa Devi W/O Chandrashekhar Singh R/O Mohalla - Raghunathpur,
Ward No. 29 (Near Bhaskar ITI), P.S- Raghunathpur, District- East
Champaran (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Smita Singh W/O Sudhanshu Shekhar, D/O Upendra Singh R/O Road No.
25, Rajiv Nagar, P.S- Rajiv Nagar, Distt.- Patna (Bihar).
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Pronoti Singh, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Anjani Kumar Jha, Advocate
Ms. Anita Kumari Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Vishwa Shri Rajender, Advocate
Ms. Shaambhavi Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 19-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present application has been filed by the
petitioners for quashing the F.I.R being Rajiv Nagar P.S. Case
No. 434 of 2025 dated 04.07.2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 85, 351(2), 352 and
3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64492 of 2025(2) dt.19-01-2026
2/3
submit that the parties have settled the differences between them
and a Settlement-cum-Compromise Petition has been filed on
01.08.2025 in the present case. It has been submitted that the
petitioner and the O.P. No. 2 are living as husband and wife and
they are together again and the O.P. No. 2 is presently residing
with the petitioner.
4. 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 has further stated that the parties
have settled their differences and in fact the O.P. No. 2 is
residing with the petitioner and in view of the above, she does
not want to pursue the present criminal proceeding.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions and taking
into account the fact that the present case was lodged for
offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 85, 351(2), 352 and 3(5)
of the B.N.S., 2023 against the petitioners being husband,
father-in-law and mother-in-law and the parties have
compromised the dispute which is primarily matrimonial
dispute, the continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse
of the process of law.
6. Keeping in view the judicial pronouncement made
in the case of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64492 of 2025(2) dt.19-01-2026
3/3
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 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.
7. Taking into account the facts of the case as well as
judicial pronouncements, the criminal proceedings based on the
F.I.R of Rajiv Nagar P.S. Case No. 434 of 2025 dated
04.07.2025 stands quashed.
8. The present application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/manoj
U T
Checking your session…