Patna High CourtCR. MISC./24374/2024allowed

Jayanand Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-09Mr. Justice Sourendra Pandey4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3703 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-395 Year-2021 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - PATNA CITY District- Patna ====================================================== Shashibhushan, Son of Sri Jayanand Prasad, R/O-Mohalla-Rajiv Nagar Road No. 16, Plot NO. -9, P.S.- Rajiv Nagar, District Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Sudha Kumari, Wife of Shashibhusan, D/O- Sri Pramod Prasad At present working as Senior Associate Manager in CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) of H C L, Foundation, Lucknow, 5th Floor, Saran Chamberl Jopling road, neer Dham Nirman complex, Hazaratganj, Lucknow U.P. PIN 660022, resident of C/O- Pramod Prasad, near Terighat Mohalla- Khajekala, P.S.- Khajekhala, Patna City, Distt.- Patna-800008 ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 24374 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-395 Year-2021 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== 1.

Jayanand Prasad, S/o Late Laxmi Narain R/o Mohalla- Rajiv Nagar, Road No. 16, Thana- Ragiv Nagar, District- Patna 2.

Sunita, Devi Wife of Jayanand Prasad R/o Mohalla- Rajiv Nagar, Road No. 16, Thana- Ragiv Nagar, District- Patna 3.

Bhushan, S/o Sri Jayanand Prasad Permanent R/o Mohalla- Rajiv Nagar, Road no. 16, Thana - Ragiv Nagar, District- Patna At present R/o MohallaBakarganj, Bari Road, Bankipur, P.S.- Pirbahore, Dist.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Sudha Kumari, W/o Shashibhusan, D/o Sri Pramod Prasad At present working as Senior Associate Manager in CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) of H C L, Foundation, Lucknow, 5th floor, Saran chamber, Jopling road, neer Dhan Nirman complex, Hazaratganj, Lucknow U.P. PIN 226600, R/o C/o Pramod Prasad, near Terighat mohalla- Khajekala, P.S.- Khajekhala, Patna City, Dist.- Patna- 800008 ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3703 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP

2/4 For the Opposite Party No.2:

Mr. Vinod Pandey, Advocate (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 24374 of 2024) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP For the Opposite Party No.2:

Mr. Vinod Pandey, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 09-02-2026 Since both the applications arise out of the same P.S. they are being heard together and being disposed off by this common order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

3. The present application has been filed by the petitioners invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court for quashing the order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna City, Patna in Complaint Case No.395 of 2021 by which cognizance for the offence under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has been taken against the petitioners.

4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit a compromise entered between the parties. It has been submitted that the parties have settled the differences, as under the one time settlement they have also filed a petition under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the court of

3/4 learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, for divorce with mutual consent and the differences between the parties have been settled and it has also been decided that the criminal case pending between the parties is to be disposed off in terms of the compromise, which finds mentioned in Paragraph 12 (v) of the joint compromise petition.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute such fact of compromise and has submitted that he does not have any objection to the disposal of the present application in terms of the compromise.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account that the present dispute relates to a matrimonial dispute and the parties have also compromised and therefore in view of the various judicial pronouncements especially, the observations made 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, paragraph -29.4 of the same reads as under:

"29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those 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."

4/4

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naushey Ali and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78 has observed that in a case where the parties have amicably settled their dispute the proceeding with the trial would be futile and it would be a grave abuse of process of law if the proceedings are not quashed.

8. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements and settled principle of law, the order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna City, Patna in Complaint Case No.395 of 2021 by which cognizance for the offence under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has been taken against the petitioners is quashed.

9. Accordingly, both the applications stand allowed. (Sourendra Pandey, J) manoj/- U T