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. vashudha/- (Soni Shrivastava, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 05.02.2026 Transmission Date NA