Rajnath Jaiswal @ Raju Jaiswal @ Raju Jaswal @ Rajnath Jaswal v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82934 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1449 Year-2023 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna ====================================================== RAJNATH JAISWAL @ RAJU JAISWAL @ RAJU JASWAL @ RAJNATH JASWAL LATE BAIJNATH JASWAL ALIAS BAIJNATH PRASAD JAISWAL Resident of Village- Gabhtal, Akhara Road, Police StationDanapur, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Amit Kumar S/o Late Arun Kumar R/o vill - Gabhtal, Akhara road, P.S. - Danapur, Distt.- Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Madhmay Madhup, Advocate Mr. Nilabh Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The application has been filed for quashing of the FIR bearing Danapur P.S. Case No. 1449 of 2023 dated 14.11.2023 registered for the offences under Section 341, 323, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act pending in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Danapur, Patna.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has brought on record Annexure-P-3, which is a compromise petition which was jointly filed by the parties
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82934 of 2024(5) dt.09-02-2026 2/3 before the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Danapur, Patna, wherein they have not only compromised but also it has specifically been stated in paragraph-4 thereof that the complainant could not see as to who had shot him as there was fog and due to earlier differences, the complainant has given the name of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 does not dispute the factum of compromise entered into between the parties and has supported the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account Annexure-P-3, which is a compromise petition as also considering various judicial pronouncements, in cases of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Naushey Ali and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78 and 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."
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82934 of 2024(5) dt.09-02-2026 3/3
6. In view of the above, the FIR bearing Danapur P.S. Case No. 1449 of 2023 dated 14.11.2023, the entire criminal proceedings therefrom is, hereby, quashed.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J) krishna/- U T