Patna High Court
Anant Kumar Sahu @ Anant Sahu and OrsversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The High Court may quash criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes, even if the offences are non‑compoundable, when a genuine settlement exists and continuation would be an abuse of process.
Summary
The petitioners filed an application under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashal of the order of cognizance dated 26.05.2017, which had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against them. The case arose from a matrimonial dispute in which the wife alleged dowry demands, cruelty and assault, but the parties later entered into a joint compromise and the husband and his father‑in‑law died during the pendency of the proceedings. Both the complainant and the State expressed no objection to terminating the criminal action. The High Court examined the scope of its inherent power under Section 482, noting that although the offences are non‑compoundable, the dispute was predominantly private and settled amicably. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that quashing was appropriate to prevent abuse of process and to serve the ends of justice. Consequently, the order of cognizance and the entire criminal proceeding were quashed, and the petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether criminal proceedings under non‑compoundable offences (498A IPC, etc.) can be quashed on the ground of a genuine settlement in a matrimonial dispute.
- Whether the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC extends to cases involving dowry‑related offences when the parties have compromised.
- Whether continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process in view of the death of principal accused and the complainant's desire not to pursue the case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 498A, 504
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- miserable matrimonial dispute
- Section 498A
- quash of criminal proceedings
- inherent jurisdiction
- compromise settlement
- non‑compoundable offence
- abuse of process
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9848 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-601 Year-2016 Thana- DEHRI TOWN District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Anant Kumar Sahu @ Anant Sahu S/o Krishna Kumar Sahu @ Krishna
Prasad Sahu,
2. Krishna Kumar Sahu @ Krishna Prasad Sahu, S/o Late Rajaram Sahu,
3. Manorama Devi @ Manorama Sahu, W/o Sri Krishna Prasad Sahu,
4. Amrita Sahu D/o Krishna Kumar Sahu @ Krishna Prasad Sahu, W/o Ajay
Kumar,
5. Anita Sahu D/o Krishna Kumar Sahu @ Krishna Pd. Shau, All R/o Bagicha
Para Road, Bhawani Patna, P.S. Sadar Bhawani Patna, District-Kalahandi
(Odisa) Presently residing at Village- 503 Tower Parasnath Palatinum
Swarnnagari, P.S.- Kasna, District- Gautam Budha nagar, Greater Noida
U.P.0.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State Of Bihar
2. Sweta Sahu D/o Ramnath Prasad Gupta, R/o Pali Road Kutiya Mandir,
Shuvganj, P.S.- Dehri, District- Rohtas. At present Residing at 503 Tower
Parasnath Platanium Swarnnagari P.S.- Kasna, Distt. Gautam Budha Nagar,
Greater Noida U.P..
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Kanhiaya, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, APP
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tiwari Shwetketu, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
5 19-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for O.P. No. 2 and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present application has been filed on behalf of
the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order
of cognizance dated 26.05.2017 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.,
Dehri, Rohtas (hereinafter referred to as ‘Magistrate’) in Dehri
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9848 of 2018(5) dt.19-02-2026
2/13
(T) P.S. Case No. 601 of 2016 wherein learned Magistrate took
cognizance of the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504/34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioners.
3. The case arises out of Dehri (T) P.S. Case No. 601
of 2016 instituted on the basis of the self-statement of O.P. No.
2. As per the F.I.R., the marriage of O.P. No.2 was solemnized
with petitioner no.1, Anant Sahu (now deceased), on 19.05.2013
at Dehri Town in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. After
marriage, she initially resided with her husband at Hyderabad,
where he was employed, and thereafter shifted with him to
Greater Noida upon his transfer. It is alleged that after some
time of marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and physical
assault by her husband and other in-laws (petitioner nos.2 to 5).
The O.P. No.2 has further alleged that at the time of marriage,
cash of Rs. 8,00,000/- and jewellery worth approximately Rs.
10,00,000/- were given by her family under pressure to the
petitioners, yet the accused persons remained dissatisfied and
continued to subject her to harassment for further demands. It
has been further alleged that during her pregnancy she was
mercilessly assaulted, which compelled her to return to her
parental home. Thereafter, on intervention of well-wishers from
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9848 of 2018(5) dt.19-02-2026
3/13
both sides, the husband executed a bond dated 28.09.2015
assuring proper care, respect and security to her. According to
the F.I.R., although there was temporary normalcy, the alleged
harassment continued. It is also alleged that subsequently the
husband started his own business and obtained a personal loan
of Rs. 8,75,000/- in the name of the informant from HDFC Bank
for investment in his business, along with a credit card facility
of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Upon repayment of the loan, pressure was
allegedly exerted upon her to arrange money from her parental
family. The informant has further alleged that on 27.10.2016,
while residing at Greater Noida, she was again assaulted by her
husband and in-laws, after which she returned to her parental
home and lodged the present F.I.R.
4. During the pendency of the present application, the
subsequent development in this case is that both the parties
(petitioner no.1 and O.P. No.2) have appeared before the learned
District and Sessions Judge, Sasaram, Rohtas in A.B.P. No. 214
of 2017 and have filed a joint compromise petition stating that
they have amicably resolved all their matrimonial disputes
resuming cohabitation as husband and wife and they do not
want to continue further litigation. The parties have
unequivocally stated that the compromise has been entered into
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9848 of 2018(5) dt.19-02-2026
4/13
voluntarily, without any force, fraud or coercion. In the
meantime, the husband and father-in-law of the O.P. No.2, who
are petitioner nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the present petition
have already died.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that during the pendency of the present
application, petitioner no.1 (husband of O.P. No.2) and
petitioner no.2 (father-in-law of O.P. No.2) have unfortunately
expired and, as such, the criminal proceeding against them
stands abated. It is further submitted that the dispute, which was
purely matrimonial in nature, had already been amicably
resolved between the husband and O.P. No. 2 during their
lifetime. It is submitted that a compromise petition dated
23.02.2017 was filed before learned District and Sessions Judge,
Sasaram, Rohtas, wherein both parties had voluntarily stated
that they had settled their differences and were living together
peacefully without any grievance against each other. It is further
submitted that in view of the said compromise and the
subsequent developments, continuation of the criminal
proceeding against the remaining petitioners (petitioner nos.3 to
5), who are family members of the petitioner no.1, would serve
no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9848 of 2018(5) dt.19-02-2026
5/13
the Court. Learned counsel submits that the allegations in the
F.I.R. are omnibus in nature so far as the remaining in-laws are
concerned, and in light of the settlement already arrived at
between the husband and wife, the substratum of the case no
longer survives. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the
proceeding be quashed in the interest of justice.
6. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 submits that in view
of the compromise dated 23.02.2017 entered into between the
husband and wife, and considering the subsequent developments
including the death of petitioner nos.1 and 2, the O.P. No.2 does
not wish to pursue the criminal proceeding any further. It is
submitted that the dispute was matrimonial in nature and had
already been amicably resolved between the parties during the
lifetime of the husband (petitioner no.1). Therefore, learned
counsel for O.P. No.2 has no objection if the present proceeding
is brought to an end in the interest of justice.
7. Learned A.P.P. for the State, in view of the
compromise arrived at between the parties as well as the death
of petitioner nos.1 and 2, submits that the State has no serious
objection to the prayer made by the petitioners. It is submitted
that since the matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute and the
informant herself does not intend to proceed with the case,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9848 of 2018(5) dt.19-02-2026
6/13
appropriate orders may be passed by this Court in accordance
with law.
8. Having heard the submissions and upon perusal of
the materials available on record, at this stage, it is apposite to
reiterate the nature of crime under Section 498A along with
Sections 323, 504/34, of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3
and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act along with the principles
guiding the scope thereto.
9. It is well settled that although offences under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and allied provisions are
non-compoundable, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
may quash criminal proceedings if the dispute is predominantly
private and arises out of matrimonial discord, and the parties
have settled the matter amicably. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., reported in
(2003) 4 SCC 675; 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 held that in cases having
overwhelmingly civil or personal flavour, particularly
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9848 of 2018(5) dt.19-02-2026
7/13
matrimonial disputes, the High Court may quash the
proceedings to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of
the process of Court, provided the compromise is genuine and
voluntary. However, such power is to be exercised with caution,
having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi (supra)
has held on the point of genuine settlement between the parties,
as under:
“12. The special features in such
matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes
the duty of the court to encourage genuine
settlements of matrimonial disputes.”
11. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court on power
of the High Court within the framework of its inherent
jurisdiction to quash a case with respect to subsequent
settlement has held in Gian Singh (supra) as under:
“61. ………...But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil
flavour stand on a different footing for the
purposes of quashing, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9848 of 2018(5) dt.19-02-2026
8/13
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.”
A similar view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Narinder Singh (supra)
12. Insofar as the principles governing quashing of
a complaint/cognizance/criminal proceeding on the basis of
compromise or settlement between the parties, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held in Parbatbhai Aahir (supra) as under:
“16.The broad principles which emerge from
the precedents on the subject, may be
summarised in the following propositions:
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent
powers of the High Court to prevent an
abuse of the process of any court or to
secure the ends of justice. The provision does
not confer new powers. It only recognises
and preserves powers which inhere in the
High Court.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9848 of 2018(5) dt.19-02-2026
9/13
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the
High Court to quash a first information
report or a criminal proceeding on the
ground that a settlement has been arrived at
between the offender and the victim is not
the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for
the purpose of compounding an offence.
While compounding an offence, the power of
the court is governed by the provisions of
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under
Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is
non-compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a
criminal proceeding or complaint should be
quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482, the High Court must evaluate
whether the ends of justice would justify the
exercise of the inherent power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High
Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has
to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of
justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the
process of any court.
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint
or first information report should be
quashed on the ground that the offender and
victim have settled the dispute, revolves
ultimately on the facts and circumstances of
each case and no exhaustive elaboration of
principles can be formulated.
16.6. In the exercise of the power under
Section 482 and while dealing with a plea
that the dispute has been settled, the High
Court must have due regard to the nature
and gravity of the offence. Heinous and
serious offences involving mental depravity
or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity
cannot appropriately be quashed though the
victim or the family of the victim have settled
the dispute. Such offences are, truly
speaking, not private in nature but have a
serious impact upon society. The decision to
continue with the trial in such cases is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9848 of 2018(5) dt.19-02-2026
10/13
founded on the overriding element of public
interest in punishing persons for serious
offences.
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences,
there may be criminal cases which have an
overwhelming or predominant element of a
civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing
insofar as the exercise of the inherent power
to quash is concerned……………………”
13. In the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Mange Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.,
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1681 has observed as under:
“29. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in
State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5
SCC 688, observed in paragraph 15.5
thereof that while exercising power under
Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal
proceedings in respect of non-compoundable
offences, which are private in nature and do
not have a serious impact on society, on the
ground that there is a settlement/compromise
between the victim and the offender, it is
necessary to consider the antecedents of the
accused; the conduct of the accused, namely,
whether the accused was absconding and
why he was absconding, how he had
managed with the complainant to enter into
a compromise, etc.
xxx xxx xxx
32. In Naushey Ali v. State of U.P., (2025) 4
SCC 78, one of us (Viswanathan, J.)
observed in paragraph 32 that proceeding
with the trial, when the parties have
amicably resolved the dispute, 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.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9848 of 2018(5) dt.19-02-2026
11/13
14. Having considered the submissions advanced on
behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the materials available
on record, it appears that the prosecution case arises out of a
matrimonial dispute between petitioner no.1 (husband) and O.P.
No. 2. The allegations in the F.I.R. relate to demand of dowry
and alleged acts of cruelty said to have been committed after the
marriage while the parties were residing at Hyderabad and
thereafter at Greater Noida. It further transpires from the record
that during the pendency of the proceeding before the learned
District and Sessions Judge, Sasaram, Rohtas, the parties
entered into an amicable settlement and a joint compromise
petition dated 23.02.2017 was filed, wherein it was stated that
they had resolved their differences and were living together
peacefully.
15. Further, it is also not in dispute that petitioner no.1
(husband) and petitioner no.2 (father-in-law) have since expired
during the pendency of the present proceeding. O.P. No. 2,
through the learned counsel, has categorically stated before this
Court that she does not intend to pursue the criminal case any
further. The learned A.P.P. for the State has also expressed no
objection in view of the compromise and the subsequent
developments. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, it is evident
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9848 of 2018(5) dt.19-02-2026
12/13
that the substratum of the dispute was matrimonial in nature and
stood amicably resolved between the principal parties during
their lifetime. In view of the compromise, the death of the
husband and father-in-law, and the clear stand of the O.P. No.2
that she does not wish to proceed further, continuation of the
criminal proceeding against the remaining accused persons
would serve no fruitful purpose and would not advance the ends
of justice.
16. Accordingly, in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced on behalf
of the parties, and the settled legal position governing quashing
of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise, this Court
is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for exercise of
inherent jurisdiction. The impugned order dated 26.05.2017
taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 498A, 323,
504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 and
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 passed by the learned
S.D.J.M., Dehri, Rohtas in Dehri (T) P.S. Case No. 601 of 2016
as well as the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, are
hereby quashed.
17. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous
application stands allowed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9848 of 2018(5) dt.19-02-2026
13/13
18. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
learned Court concerned forthwith.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
rakhi/-
U T
Checking your session…