Patna High Court
Vicky Kumar @ Vivek KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The High Court quashed the FIR on the ground that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process given the full settlement between the parties.
Summary
The petitioners Vicky Kumar, Vishal Kumar and Saurabh Kumar filed an application to quash FIR No. 144 of 2025 registered at Soh Sarai police station, which alleged offences under several sections of the B.N.S. They claimed that the dispute had been fully settled through compromise and that, except for Section 109, the offences were compoundable and of a private nature, making further prosecution futile. The State opposed, arguing that serious offences were involved and compromise was not permissible. The Court examined the settled law on the High Court's inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, particularly the principles laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasizing that such power is exercised to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, especially where the offences are predominantly civil or private. Finding that the offences were personal, the parties had settled, and continuation would amount to abuse of process, the Court quashed the FIR. The application was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- The High Court's inherent jurisdiction to quash an FIR when the parties have compromised.
- Whether the nature of the offences (private/compoundable vs serious/public) permits quashing.
- Whether continuation of the criminal proceeding would constitute abuse of process of law.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 308(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 320
Subjects
- quash of FIR
- compromise
- inherent jurisdiction
- abuse of process
- private offences
- settlement
- High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67927 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-144 Year-2025 Thana- SOHSARAI District- Nalanda
======================================================
1. Vicky Kumar @ Vivek Kumar Son of Anil Mahto @ Anil Kumar Resident
of village- Ashanagar, Ps- soh Sarai, Dist- Nalanda
2. Vishal Kumar son of Anil Mahto @ Anil Kumar Resident of village-
Ashanagar, Ps- soh Sarai, Dist- Nalanda
3. Saurabh Kumar Son of Satish Prasad Resident of village- Ashanagar, Ps- soh
Sarai, Dist- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rohit Kumar son of Kishori Prasad Resident of village- Kakhada, Ps-
Noorsarai, Dist- Nalanda
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amitabh Rituraj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Md. Matloob Rab, APP
For the Informant : Ms. Monika Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 05-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing
the F.I.R. dated being Soh Sarai P.S. Case No. 144 of 2025 dated
31.05.2025 registered under Sections 303(2), 126(2), 115(2),
109, 308(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners as well as the O.P. No. 2 have jointly
submitted that the parties have compromised with the
intervention of well-wishers. It has been submitted that barring
Section 109 of the B.N.S., rest all of the sections are
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67927 of 2025(2) dt.05-02-2026
2/5
compoundable and in view of the nature of offences, which are
entirely personal and does not shakes with the public
conscience, the continuation of proceedings would be utterly
futile. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for
the respective parties that both the parties are not interested in
pursuing the matter and as such the present application may be
allowed and the proceedings arising out of Soh Sarai P.S. Case
No. 144 of 2025 be quashed.
4. Learned APP for the State submits that there is a
serious offence alleged against the petitioners and as such the
question of compromise does not arise.
5. Upon considering the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the respective parties and taking into
account the compromise petition, which has been brought on
record by way of Annexure-P/2, it would be evident that the
parties have indeed compromised and looking at the nature of
offences, it would appear that it was an act committed by the
petitioners against the informant and not against public policy. It
has lastly been submitted that the continuation of the
proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.
6. Considering the settled principle of law as
enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh
v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, paragraph -61
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67927 of 2025(2) dt.05-02-2026
3/5
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,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67927 of 2025(2) dt.05-02-2026
4/5
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, 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.”
7. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67927 of 2025(2) dt.05-02-2026
5/5
arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should
be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes
among themselves.”
8. 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 Soh Sarai P.S. Case No. 144 of 2025 is, hereby, quashed.
9. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
U
Checking your session…