RAM JANAM PRASADversusThe State of Bihar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67860 of 2023
          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-59 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Rohtas
     ======================================================
1.    Ram Janam Prasad Son Of Shivan Ram Resident Of Patel Gali New Area
      Dehri On Sone Ps Dehri District Rohtas
2.   Ram Dulari Devi W/O Ram Janam Prasad Resident Of Patel Gali New Area
     Dehri On Sone Ps Dehri District Rohtas

                                                                        ... ... Petitioner/s
                                            Versus
1.   The State of Bihar
2.   Dr. Kumari Babita W/o Abhishek Kumar R/o Mohalla - Kohinur Medical
     New Area near Sabji Mandi, ward no. 18, P.S. - Dehri, Distt. - Rohtas

                                            ... ... Opposite Party/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s    :        Mr. Shadwal Harsh, Advocate
     For the State           :        Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, A.P.P
     For the O.P. No. 2      :        Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Advocate
                                      Mr. Harendra Kumar Sigh, Advocate
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
     ORAL JUDGMENT
     Date : 03-02-2026
                  Heard Mr. Shadwal Harsh, the learned counsel for

      the petitioner, Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, the learned A.P.P.

      for the State and Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh, the learned

      counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No. 2.

                    2. This is an application for quashing the order dated

      18.08.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,

      Sasaram, Rohtas in GR No. 311 of 2022 arising out of Mahila

      P.S. Case no. 59 of 2021 of District Rohtas whereby the learned

      court below has rejected the discharge application filed by the

      petitioners under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67860 of 2023 dt.03-02-2026
                                            2/5




                      3. The petitioners before this Court are the father-in-

         law and mother-in-law being over 70 years of age.

                      4. The background of this case also as pointed out by

         the learned counsel for the petitioners suggests that a

         compromise had been reached between the opposite party No. 2

         and her husband and in pursuance of the same an application

         under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was also

         filed before the family court Rohtas, Sasaram. However, after

         filing of the said application, the husband of the opposite party

         no. 2 had died.

                      5. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite

         Party No. 2 also does not have any objection if the order under

         challenge by which the discharge application filed by the

         petitioners was rejected, is quashed, only if the O.P. No. 2, now

         a widow, is not ousted and is allowed to remain in the house

         peacefully.

                      6. In view of the several judicial pronouncements to

         the effect that in case of compromise in non-compoundable

         offences also, the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. ought to

         be exercised for quashing of prosecution where the parties have

         settled the matter and the complainant does not want to pursue

         the case any further.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67860 of 2023 dt.03-02-2026
                                            3/5




                      7. In a very recent case of Mange Ram Vs. State of

         Madhya Pradesh and Anr. [2025 INSC 962], the Hon’ble

         Supreme Court after discussing the earlier judgments on the

         issue of family members of the husband being unnecessarily

         roped into criminal proceedings in matrimonial discord, has laid

         down that continuation of criminal proceedings, in the event of

         a compromise between parties even in case of non-

         compoundable offences, especially in matters of matrimony,

         would only be an exercise in futility and justice demands that

         the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is

         restored.

                      8. Such observation has been made with specific

         reference to offence arising out of matrimonial dispute

         particularly relating to dowry etc., or a family dispute where the

         wrong is committed with the offender and the victim have

         settled dispute between them.

                      9. In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab

         reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, it had been held by the Hon’ble

         Supreme Court that High Court within the framework of 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 by not quashing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67860 of 2023 dt.03-02-2026
                                            4/5




         criminal proceedings, justice shall itself be a casualty and ends

         of justice shall be defeated.

                      10. In the case of Naushey Ali vs. State of U.P.,

         reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78, there is clear-cut observation by

         the Hon’ble Supreme Court that when the parties have amicably

         resolved the dispute, proceeding with the trial would be futile

         and the ends of justice require that the settlement be given effect

         to by quashing the proceedings. It would be a grave abuse of

         process particularly when the dispute is settled and resolved.

                      11. Taking into consideration the entire facts and

         circumstances of the case and the submissions made on behalf

         of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that in the

         backdrop of resolution of dispute between the parties, the

         continuation of criminal proceedings against the family

         members of the husband of the complainant/opposite party no.2,

         especially, in absence of any specific allegations, would serve

         no legitimate purpose as has been held in the case of Mange

         Ram (supra), it would only prolong bitterness between the

         parties and unnecessarily burden the justice system, especially

         when the disputes are no longer live.

                      12. Accordingly, considering it to be the duty of this

         Court to bring quietus to personal disputes that have already
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67860 of 2023 dt.03-02-2026
                                                         5/5




                      been settled between the parties, this Court would consider the

                      continuation of the criminal proceedings as abuse of the process

                      of the Court. Consequently, the impugned order dated

                      18.08.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,

                      Sasaram, Rohtas in connection with GR No. 311 of 2022 arising

                      out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 59 of 2021 is quashed.

                                   13. It is, however, expected that on account of an

                      earlier understanding between the parties, the petitioners would

                      not oust the opposite party no. 2 from her matrimonial house.

                                   14. With such observations, the present application

                      stands allowed.




                                                 (Soni Shrivastava, J)
vashudha/-
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          05.02.2026
Transmission Date       NA