Patna High Court
MADHUSUDAN SINGHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The High Court may quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC because the dispute is private, settled, and continuation would amount to abuse of process.
Summary
The petitioners, members of two branches of the same family, sought quashing of criminal proceedings arising from a family dispute over property partition. The original cases involved allegations of assault, theft and criminal intimidation under various IPC sections, filed by each side against the other. Both parties later entered into a joint compromise, asserting that the dispute was purely private and that continuation of the criminal trials would be an abuse of process. The High Court examined its inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC, noting that such power may be exercised sparingly but is appropriate when the dispute is private, settled, and lacks public interest. Relying on Supreme Court precedents permitting quash of non‑compoundable offences in family matters, the Court held that the proceedings should be dismissed. Consequently, the orders taking cognizance and the criminal proceedings in both cases were quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC when the parties to a family dispute have amicably settled the matter.
- Whether non‑compoundable offences arising from a private family dispute may be dismissed to prevent abuse of the judicial process.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 202, 320, 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 324, 34, 341, 380, 448, 504
Subjects
- family dispute
- criminal compromise
- Section 482 CrPC
- quash of proceedings
- non‑compoundable offences
- abuse of process
- property partition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29643 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2640 Year-2015 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
1. Tajendra Kaur, W/o Charanprit Singh and Daughter of Harisumiran Singh,
Resident of Mohalla- Salimpur Ahra (Baulia), P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, District-
Patna.
2. Guruprit Kaur, D/o Harisumirn Singh Resident of Mohalla- Salimpur Ahra
(Baulia), P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna.
3. Smt. Hermit Kaur Wife of Harisumiran Singh Resident of Mohalla-
Salimpur Ahra (Baulia), P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Madhusudan Singh, S/o Late Avtar Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Salimpur
Ahra (Baulia), P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 79906 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-296 Year-2015 Thana- GANDHIMAIDAN District- Patna
======================================================
1. Madhusudan Singh, Son of Late Avtar Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Salimpur
Ahara (Baulia) under Gandhi Maidan Police Station, District- Patna.
2. Pritpal Kaur, Wife of Madhusudan Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Salimpur
Ahara (Baulia) under Gandhi Maidan Police Station, District- Patna.
3. Jasprit Singh, Son of Madhusudan Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Salimpur
Ahara (Baulia) under Gandhi Maidan Police Station, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Tajendra Kaur, Daughter of Harisumiran Singh, Resident of Mohalla-
Salimpur Ahara (Baulia) under Gandhi Maidan Police Station, District-
Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 29643 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uma Shankar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the state : Mr. Khurshid Anwar, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29643 of 2017(7) dt.06-05-2026
2/9
Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 79906 of 2019)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sunil Srivastava, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
7 06-05-2026 1. Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma and Mr. Uma
Shankar, learned senior counsel for respective parties as well as
learned APP for the State.
2. These two criminal miscellaneous applications,
being Cr. Misc. No. 29643 of 2017 and Cr. Misc. No. 79906 of
2019, have been taken up together and are being disposed of by
this common order as both arise out of cross cases between the
same set of parties, namely Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 296 of
2015 and Complaint Case No. 2640 (C) of 2015, pending before
the Courts concerned.
3. The present applications have been filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking
quashing of the respective criminal proceedings as well as the
orders taking cognizance, primarily on the ground that the
parties, who are closely related family members, have amicably
settled their disputes and have jointly filed a compromise
petition before this Court.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the disputes
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29643 of 2017(7) dt.06-05-2026
3/9
arose between two branches of the same family, who are closely
related and residing in the same premises, primarily on account
of long-standing civil disputes relating to partition and property.
On 21.07.2015, an occurrence is alleged to have taken place
inside the house, pursuant to which Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case
No. 296 of 2015 was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of
Tajender Kaur (petitioner no.1 in Cr. Misc. No. 29643 of 2017)
alleging assault and abuse by the accused persons, attracting
offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 504 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In retaliation, Complaint
Case No. 2640 (C) of 2015 was filed by Madhusudan Singh
(petitioner no.1 in Cr. Misc. No. 79906 of 2019) alleging that
the accused persons entered into his house, assaulted him and
his family members, and committed theft of cash and
ornaments, leading to cognizance being taken under Sections
323, 380, 448 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code. Thus, both cases are cross versions of the same
occurrence arising out of personal and familial discord.
5. Upon perusal of the materials available on record, it
transpires that in Complaint Case No. 2640 (C) of 2015, after
conducting an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and examining the complainant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29643 of 2017(7) dt.06-05-2026
4/9
(Madhusudan Singh) on solemn affirmation and witnesses
during inquiry, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna
took cognizance of the offences under Sections 323, 380, 448
and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide
order dated 14.11.2016 against the accused persons which was
further affirmed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Patna
in Criminal Revision No.744 of 2016 and Criminal Revision
No.787 of 2016 vide a common order dated 14.02.2017.
Likewise, in Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 296 of 2015, upon
submission of charge-sheet after investigation, the learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna took cognizance of the
offences under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 324 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons
namely, Madhusudan Singh, Pritpal Kaur and Jasprit Singh,
who are petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 79906 of 2019.
6. During the pendency of these applications, a joint
compromise petition has been filed on behalf of both the parties
stating, inter alia, that with the intervention of family members,
friends and well-wishers, the disputes between them have been
amicably resolved. It has been submitted that the parties, who
are closely related agnates, have decided to bury their
differences and restore cordial relations, and do not wish to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29643 of 2017(7) dt.06-05-2026
5/9
pursue the criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid
cases. The compromise petition is duly supported by affidavits
of the parties, and they have voluntarily expressed their consent
for quashing of the respective criminal proceedings in order to
bring an end to the long-standing dispute.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 in both the cases
jointly submit that the disputes between the parties arose out of
personal and family discord and have now been amicably settled
by way of compromise. It is submitted that the parties are
closely related and are living in harmony after settlement, and
the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no
useful purpose and would rather amount to abuse of the process
of the Court. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the
compromise entered into between the parties, both the criminal
proceedings as well as the orders taking cognizance are fit to be
quashed in exercise of inherent powers of this Court.
8. Learned APP for the State fairly submits that the
dispute between the parties is purely personal in nature and in
view of the compromise taken place between them, continuation
of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.
He submits that appropriate orders may be passed in accordance
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29643 of 2017(7) dt.06-05-2026
6/9
with law.
9. Before adverting to the facts and circumstances of
the present case, it would be apposite to notice the scope and
ambit of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said provision saves the
inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to make such orders as
may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. Though such power is of wide
amplitude, it is well settled that the same is to be exercised
sparingly, with circumspection, and in rare and appropriate
cases. However, where the dispute is essentially private in
nature and continuation of the criminal proceeding would
amount to abuse of the process of the Court, this Court would be
justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash the
proceedings in order to secure the ends of justice.
10. On a careful consideration of the materials
available on record, it transpires that both the cases arise out of
the same occurrence dated 21.07.2015 and are in the nature of
case and counter-case between two branches of the same family.
The allegations leveled by both sides are essentially against
each other and are rooted in personal animosity arising out of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29643 of 2017(7) dt.06-05-2026
7/9
long-standing civil disputes relating to partition and property.
The evidence collected during inquiry as well as investigation
primarily consists of statements of interested witnesses, who are
closely related to the parties, and no independent witness has
been brought on record despite the place of occurrence being a
residential locality. Thus, the criminal proceedings appear to be
an offshoot of the underlying civil dispute between the parties.
11. It further appears that the offences alleged in both
the cases are predominantly of personal nature. The allegations
relating to theft and house trespass are intertwined with the
same family dispute and do not have any overriding element of
public interest or societal impact.
12. In view of the compromise entered into between
the parties and considering the nature of allegations, this Court
finds that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would
not advance the cause of justice. Rather, it would prolong the
bitterness between the parties who have now chosen to resolve
their disputes amicably. The possibility of conviction in such
circumstances appears remote and bleak, particularly when the
parties themselves are not willing to support the prosecution
case. Therefore, allowing the proceedings to continue would
amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29643 of 2017(7) dt.06-05-2026
8/9
13. It is well settled that the offences which cannot be
compounded by the parties under Section 320 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, is not denuded of its power to quash the proceedings
where the dispute is essentially private in nature and does not
have a serious impact on society at large. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., reported in
(2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of
Punjab and Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Parbatbhai
Aahir and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr., reported in (2017)
9 SCC 641 has consistently held that in cases arising out of
matrimonial, family or purely personal disputes, where the
parties have amicably settled their differences, the High Court
may quash even non-compoundable offences to secure the ends
of justice, provided the offences are not heinous or of serious
societal impact. In the present case, the allegations being rooted
in a family dispute and having been amicably settled, it is in the
interest of justice to exercise the inherent powers of this Court.
14. In view of the discussions made herein above, this
Court is satisfied that the dispute between the parties is purely
personal in nature, arising out of family discord, and the same
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29643 of 2017(7) dt.06-05-2026
9/9
has been amicably settled between them. Continuation of the
criminal proceedings in both the cases would serve no useful
purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
15. Accordingly, the orders taking cognizance as well
as the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case
No. 2640 (C) of 2015 and Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 296 of
2015, and also the impugned orders passed in the respective
criminal revision applications, are hereby quashed/ set aside.
16. Both the Criminal Miscellaneous Applications
stand allowed.
17. Interim order(s), if any, is hereby vacated.
18. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Court(s) concerned forthwith for information and necessary
compliance.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-
U T
Checking your session…