Patna High Court
MANINDRA NATH PANDEYversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court held that, given the amicable settlement, lack of specific allegations, and the civil character of the dispute, the criminal prosecution must be quashed under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
Summary
The petitioners, who are the father‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law of the complainant, filed an application to quash a criminal case (Mahila P.S. Case No. 141 of 2021) pending before the Judicial Magistrate‑1st Class, Patna, for offences under Sections 498A and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The FIR contained only vague, omnibus allegations and no specific charge against the petitioners. The parties later resolved their dispute through mediation, executed a mutual‑consent divorce decree, and submitted a settlement memorandum. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that allow quashing of criminal proceedings when the dispute is civil in nature and has been amicably settled, the High Court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC and ordered the prosecution quashed. The application was allowed, and the criminal case was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 498A/34 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act can be quashed when the alleged offences pertain to family members and the FIR lacks specific allegations.
- Whether the parties' amicable settlement and divorce decree justify the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the case.
- Whether the continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process in light of the settlement.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 498A
Subjects
- criminal law
- Section 498A
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- quash of criminal proceedings
- Section 482 CrPC
- mediation
- settlement
- family dispute
- inherent jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6885 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-141 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Patna
======================================================
1. Manindra Nath Pandey Son of Late Babu Ram Pandey R/O Mohalla- Shiv
Nagar Colony, West Of Beur Jail, P.S.- Beur, P.O.- Anisabad, Distt.- Patna-
800002
2. Renu Pandey Wife of Sri Mahindra Nath Pandey R/O Mohalla- Shiv Nagar
Colony, West Of Beur Jail, P.S.- Beur, P.O.- Anisabad, Distt.- Patna- 800002
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sonam Raj D/O- Umesh Trivedi, Wife Of Manish Ranjan R/O Mohalla-
Shiv Sagar Colony, West Of Beur Jail, P.S.- Beur, P.O.- Anisabad, Distt.-
Patna- 800002
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kuber Pathak, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Suman Kumari Singh, A.P.P
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Vinod Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
5 27-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P
for the State and learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party
No.2.
2. This is an application on behalf of the petitioners for
quashing the entire prosecution arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No.
141 of 2021 dated 02.12.2021, District-Patna, for offences under
Section 498A/34 of the I.P.C and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
which is pending in the learned court of Judicial Magistrate-1st
Class, Patna.
3. The petitioners in the present application are the
father-in-law and mother-in-law of the opposite party no.2 and the
allegations against them made in the First Information Report are
general and omnibus in nature with no specific allegations being
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6885 of 2023(5) dt.27-01-2026
2/4
imputed on them. The further development in this case is that the
parties to the litigation have settled the disputes amicably between
them in course of the mediation proceeding at Patna High Court
Mediation Centre by way of a memorandum of agreement dated
19.09.2023 passed in Mediation Proceeding No.576 of 2023 where
they agreed to come to a one time settlement of parting ways as
they decided to live separately in future by getting their
matrimonial relations dissolved by a decree of divorce on the
agreed terms and conditions. A supplementary affidavit has been
filed on behalf of the petitioners highlighting the factum of one
time settlement and the copy of the judgment dated 09.05.2025
dissolving the marriage between the parties under Section 13B(2)
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the decree of divorce dated
22.05.2025 have also been brought on record by way of Annexure-
P/3 to the supplementary affidavit.
4. At this juncture this Court would gainfully refer to the
case of Kahkashan Kausar vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2022)
6 SCC 599, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has guarded
against over-implication of family members of husband of
informant and has even noted that even eventual acquittal also
inflicts severe scars on the accused.
5. Besides considering the fact that the petitioners
happen to be the in-laws of the opposite party no.2, also
considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6885 of 2023(5) dt.27-01-2026
3/4
the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10
SCC 303, holding that the High Court within the framework of
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
criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and the ends of
justice shall be defeated.
6. In the case of Naushey Ali v. State of U.P., reported
in (2025) 4 SCC 78, there is a clear cut observation by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that when the parties have amicably resolved the
dispute, proceeding with the trial would be an exercise in futility
and the ends of justice require that the settlement be given effect to
by quashing the proceedings.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder
Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, has
reiterated the position that 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 dispute among themselves.
8. Thus, in view of the amicable settlement having been
reached between the parties after the process of mediation in the
form of a decree of divorce passed on mutual consent, a quietus
ought to be given to the criminal proceedings as the continuation
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6885 of 2023(5) dt.27-01-2026
4/4
of the same, especially against the family members of the husband
of the opposite party no.2, especially in absence of any specific
allegations, would serve no legitimate purpose as has been held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mange Ram Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (2025 INSC 962) and would only
prolonged bitterness between the parties and unnecessarily burden
the judicial system, especially when the disputes are no longer
live.
9. Accordingly, considering it to be the bounden duty of
this Court to secure the ends of justice which can be done only by
drawing down the curtains to the litigation between the parties in
view of the settlement reached between them, this Court in its
inherent jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C., would proceed to
quash the criminal prosecution arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No.
141 of 2021 dated 02.12.2021 as the continuance of the same
would only amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
10. Accordingly, the criminal prosecution arising out of
Mahila P.S. Case No.141 of 2021 dated 02.12.2021 stands quashed
and the instant application is allowed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Anand/-
U T
Checking your session…