Patna High Court
ARUN KUMAR @ ARUN KUMAR BHAGATversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that the settlement between the parties rendered the prosecution futile and an abuse of process.
Summary
The petitioners, who are the father‑in‑law, mother‑in‑law and brother‑in‑law of the complainant, sought quashing of criminal proceedings instituted under IPC Sections 323 and 498A and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complaint alleged dowry demand and torture, but during anticipatory bail proceedings the husband and wife reached a mutual‑consent divorce and a settlement of Rs. 18.5 lakh, of which most was already paid. Both sides submitted a supplementary affidavit confirming the compromise. Relying on the Supreme Court’s pronouncements that even non‑compoundable offences may be quashed where the parties have settled, the High Court held that continuation of the prosecution would be futile and an abuse of process. Consequently, the order taking cognizance and the entire prosecution were quashed, and the petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings for non‑compoundable offences (IPC 323, 498A and Dowry Act 4) can be quashed on the ground of a settlement between the parties.
- Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash such proceedings.
- Whether continuation of prosecution against family members in a matrimonial dispute amounts to an abuse of process.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 4
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 13B
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A
Subjects
- quash
- compromise
- dowry
- non‑compoundable offence
- Section 482
- abuse of process
- matrimonial dispute
- settlement
- criminal proceedings
- family members
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74594 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2921 Year-2022 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Arun Kumar @ Arun Kumar Bhagat S/O Late Mahavir Bhagat R/O
Gangwara, Kranti Chauk, P.O- Sara Mohanpur, P.S- Town Darbhanga,
Distt.- Darbhanga.
2. Meera Bhagat W/O Arun Kumar Bhagat R/O Gangwara, Kranti Chauk, P.O-
Sara Mohanpur, P.S- Town Darbhanga, Distt.- Darbhanga.
3. Prince Kumar @ Prince Kumar Bhagat S/O Arun Bhagat R/O Gangwara,
Kranti Chauk, P.O- Sara Mohanpur, P.S- Town Darbhanga, Distt.-
Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Annu kumari @ sweeti w/o banti kumar, d/o jageshwar bhagat r/o gangwara,
kranti chauk, p.o- sara mohanpur, p.s- town darbhanga, distt.- Darbhanga. At
present resident of village and p.o- khabara, p.s- sadar, distt.- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surya Kant Mishra Advocate
Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocate
Ms. Lakshmi Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Madhuri Lata, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-02-2026
Heard Mr. Surya Kant Mishra, the learned counsel for
the petitioner assisted by Mr. Alok Ranjan and Ms. Lakshmi Kumari,
the learned advocates, Mrs. Madhuri Lata, the learned A.P.P. for the
State and Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, the learned counsel appearing for
the opposite party no. 2.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing of
the order taking cognizance dated 19.07.2023 under Sections 323 and
498 (A) of the I.P.C and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74594 of 2023 dt.03-02-2026
2/5
passed by the learned S.D.J.M, East Muzaffarpur in connection with
complaint case no. 2921 of 2022.
3. The petitioners before this Court are the father-in-law,
mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2.
4. The allegations in the complaint related to demand of
dowry and torture at the hands of the accused persons. However, the
subsequent development in this case is that during the anticipatory
bail proceedings of the husband of the opposite party no. 2, Banti
Kumar, a compromise had been arrived at between the parties and in
pursuance to such compromise, a matrimonial case for dissolution of
marriage with mutual consent under Section 13 ‘B’ of the Hindu
Marriage Act,1955 was filed before the family court, Muzaffarpur
vide matrimonial case no. 319 of 2025. The joint statement in the
said case has been brought on record by way of supplementary
affidavit indicating the fact that on account of one time settlement
between the parties an amount of Rs. 18,50,000/- (Eighteen Lakh and
Fifty Thousand) was agreed towards full and final settlement
between the parties, out of which 17,75,000/- (Seventeen Lakh and
Seventy Five Thousand) has already been received by the opposite
party no. 2 from her husband Banti Kumar. With regard to the
remaining amount of Rs. 75,000/- (Seventy Five Thousand) it has
been agreed to be paid through demand draft at the time of recording
second motion statement.
5. In view of the supplementary affidavit filed before this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74594 of 2023 dt.03-02-2026
3/5
court indicating a compromise between the parties and also upon the
learned counsels appearing for both the sides confirming the said
factum of compromise, continuation of criminal prosecution would
serve no useful purpose and there are several judicial
pronouncements to the effect that even in the case of compromise in
non-compoundable offences, 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74594 of 2023 dt.03-02-2026
4/5
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 criminal proceedings, justice
shall itself be a casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Accordingly, considering it to be the duty of this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74594 of 2023 dt.03-02-2026
5/5
Court to bring quietus to personal disputes that have already 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 19.07.2023
passed by the learned S.D.J.M, East Muzaffarpur in connection with
Complaint Case No. 2921 of 2022 and the entire prosecution arising
therefrom stands quashed as against the present petitioners.
12. Accordingly, the present application on behalf of
petitioners stands allowed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
vashudha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 05.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…