Patna High Court
Vinay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The order dated 14‑05‑2010 and the criminal proceedings are quashed as against the petitioner.
Summary
Vinay Kumar, the grandson of the informant, filed an application to quash the order dated 14‑05‑2010 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, which had taken cognizance of alleged cheating, criminal breach of trust and forgery (IPC §§419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471) against him and others. The prosecution alleged that two accused had taken Rs 70,000 for installing a mobile tower, but the parties later compromised and the money was returned. The petitioner was not named in the FIR and only learned of the case when a process under CrPC §82 was issued. Both the accused and the informant had settled the dispute, and the petitioner argued that continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of process. The court, relying on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014 6 SCC 466) regarding the exercise of power under CrPC §482 to quash proceedings where a settlement resolves a personal dispute, held that the ends of justice required quashing the proceedings against the petitioner. Consequently, the order of 14‑05‑2010 and the entire criminal proceeding were quashed as against the petitioner, and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal proceeding for non‑compoundable offences can be quashed on the basis of a private compromise between the parties.
- Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent power under CrPC §482 to quash the proceedings against a person not named in the FIR.
- Whether the petition for quash is maintainable despite the lapse of time since the order taking cognizance.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482, 82
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- quash
- compromise
- Section 482 CrPC
- non‑compoundable offence
- abuse of process
- criminal procedure
- IPC offences
- settlement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82572 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2009 Thana- RAMKRISHNANAGAR District- Patna
======================================================
Vinay Kumar S/O Saryug Mahto R/O Village- Madhopur, P.S.- Silao, Dist.-
Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Patna
2. Vashudeo Prasad S/O Late Ranju Mahto R/O Vill.- Delwan New Bypass,
P.S.- Ram Krishnanagar, Dist.- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Prasad, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr.Manoj Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 and learned A.P.P.
for the State.
2. The petitioner has made the following prayer in this
application :-
“That this is an application for quashing
of the order dated 14.05.2010 passed by
the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Patna in Ramkrishna Nagar
P. S. Case No. 79/2009 whereby and
whereunder cognizance has been taken u/s
419, 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 of the
I.P.C. against the petitioner and others.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82572 of 2025 dt.05-02-2026
2/5
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
prosecution case was to the effect that the two named accused
persons namely Abhikant Verma @ Munna and Sunil Paswan
have contacted the informant for installation of mobile tower. It
has further been alleged that Rs. 70,000/- was paid. However,
the two persons were subsequently found that they were not
working in the office of the said company and it was realized
that the accused persons had swindled several persons in such
manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is the grand son of the informant. It has further been
submitted that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. and as
such he was not aware of the development made in the case. It
has further been submitted that named accused persons and the
informant had compromised the matter way back on 05.09.2009
and the said petition was filed before the learned trial court. It
has further been submitted that despite such compromise on
record, learned trial court has gone to take cognizance against
the accused persons vide order dated 14.05.2010. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was
not initially named accused in the F.I.R., he was not aware of
such development and only when the process under Section 82
of the Cr.P.C. was issued, he came to know about the pendency
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82572 of 2025 dt.05-02-2026
3/5
of the said case and therefore, has preferred this application.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
no concern with the aforesaid incident and it is an admitted case,
the money was handed over to the two named accused persons.
As per the compromise, the said amount has already been
returned. It has further been submitted that in view of such
compromise and the offence being very personal in nature and
the petitioner being not directly involved, the continuation of
such proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of law.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.
No. 2 has very fairly submitted that the parties have
compromised. The continuation of the proceeding especially
against the petitioner would not serve the purpose and it would
be a trial in futility. It has further been submitted that the
quashing application of the two named accused persons is
pending before this Hon’ble Court however it is not disputed
that the petitioner was not party to the said compromise.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the present
application stating that the petitioner has challenged the order
taking cognizance which was passed way back in the year 2010
and hence, it should not be entertained.
6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82572 of 2025 dt.05-02-2026
4/5
and taking into account the fact that the submission made
therein specially for the fact that the offence alleged therein,
though not been compoundable, are personal in nature and in
view of the compromise the same can be considered. In view of
the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Narinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Anr
reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has given the guidelines and laid down the principles by
which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate
treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its
power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., while accepting the
settlement and quashing the proceedings or in the alternative
refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with
the criminal proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further
elaborated that when the parties have reached the settlement and
on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceeding is
filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(I) ends of justice,
(II) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 29.4
observed as under:
“29.4. On the other hand, those
criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominantly civil character, particularly those
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82572 of 2025 dt.05-02-2026
5/5
arising out of commercial transactions or arising
out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes
should be quashed when the parties have resolved
their entire disputes among themselves.”
8. Accordingly, the order dated 14.05.2010 as well as
the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Ramkrishna Nagar
P. S. Case No. 79/2009, is, hereby, quashed as against the
petitioner.
9. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Gautam/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 10.02.2026
Transmission Date 10.02.2026
Checking your session…