Pawan Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Anr.

Date : 14-08-2026 The petitioner being husband has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 26.08.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Masaurhi, Patna in Complaint Case No. 336 (c) of 2015 whereby finding prima facie case under Sections 498(A), 379 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Processes have been issued against the petitioner and other accused persons to appear before the Court to face trial.

A complaint petition was filed in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Masaurhi on 31.07.2015 alleging inter alia therein that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with the petitioner, namely Pawan Kumar on 24.02.2007 in accordance with Hindu religious rites and rituals in a temple at Dhanbad, in which her father had given various gifts including cash of Rs. 1,25,000/- and furnitures worth Rs. 1,00,000/- and after marriage, she went to her in-laws house (sasural), where out of wedlock two daughters namely Sapna Kumari, aged about 7 years and Swechha Kumari, aged about 3 years were born in course of time.

It is further alleged that her husband, namely Pawan Kumar (petitioner herein), works in a steel factory in Orissa, but after sometime of marriage all the accused persons as named in the complaint started torturing her for fulfilling the demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- and when she shows her inability to fetch the same, she was variously tortured by all the accused persons. The accused persons including the petitioner and dewars started burning her body with cigarettes and she was practically restrained from meeting anybody from her parents home. On 25.07.2015, at about 06:00pm, she was variously assaulted for non-fulfillment of dowry demand and forcibly expelled from matrimonial home, after snatching her jewellery of gold. The matter was reported to local police on 30.07.2015, but their indifference to register a case, forced the complainant to approach the Civil Court by filing a complaint case.

The aforesaid complaint case was instituted as Complaint Case No. 336 (c) of 2015, thereafter the statement of solitary enquiry witness, namely Kaltu Pandit, was recorded on 26.08.2015, whereafter having perused the aforesaid materials as well as the documents brought on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Masaurhi, finding prima facie case under Section 498(A), 379, 323 of the Indian Penal Code issued processed against all the accused persons so named in the complaint application including the petitioner for their appearance to face trial.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations so levelled in the complaint application is general and omnibus and on account of her stubborn behavior, she did not want to reside at her matrimonial home and was compelling the husband to take her to his place of work in Orissa. When petitioner showed his inability to keep her with him on account of paucity of place and non-availability of basic amenities, levelling false allegation, the complaint case was instituted. He also points out that out of wed-lock two daughters namely Sapna Kumari, aged about 7 years and Swechha Kumari, aged about 3 years were born and she never complained of any kind of torcherous behavior, but only on account of her insistence in not staying with family members of petitioner, the instant complaint case was filed with an ulterior motive. In her solemn affirmation the complainant has also admitted to have lodged a case at Dhanbad Mahila Police Station in the year 2010 and after compromise, the matter was settled between the parties.

Learned counsel also submits that merely on account of incompatibility and issues relating to understanding on certain aspects, the complainant has filed the instant complaint case, where on account of intervention of well-wishers of the family, the matter had finally been settled amicably between the parties, which is evident from supplementary affidavit filed on 03.05.2024, bringing on record the compromise petition duly signed by both the parties, i.e. petitioner and complainant (O.P. No. 2 herein).

Thus, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner prays that the case is fit to be quashed as its continuance appears to be an exercise in futility and is untenable in the eyes of law and as such, in view of settlement between the parties whereafter both the parties have been living together as husband and wife, this case may be given a quietus.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 admits that the matter has been compromised between the parties and both have jointly filed a compromise petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Masaurhi where the case is pending. The learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 also points out that after settlement of issues between the parties, both have been living together at matrimonial home peacefully and happily and as such, the complainant wife does not want to proceed ahead with the case.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State also did not dispute the aforesaid facts so submitted on behalf of both the parties.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 duly assisted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Though the complaint case has been filed initially pointing out various instances of torture, wherein, after recording the statement of complainant and enquiry witnesses on oath, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Masaurhi took cognizance of offences under Sections 498(A), 379, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, but in view of the subsequent development wherein the matter has amicably been settled between the parties which is evident from the joint compromise petition filed before the learned trial Court and has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner on 03.05.2024, perusal of which reflects that both the parties have been living together since 23.01.2017 after filing of compromise petition before the learned trial Court and they are enjoying the bliss of marital life with all its pleasures.

The Court having considered the afore-noted facts, is of the view that the offences under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code is non-compoundable but in the backdrop of the amicable resolution of dispute between the parties, which is primarily matrimonial in nature, could in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can compound offences which are non-compoundable in the light of judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while accepting settlement deed between the parties and quashing the proceedings, laid down guidelines for High Courts and observed as follows:-

Furthermore recently in the case of Naushey Ali vs. State of U.P., reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 32 as hereunder:-

In the conspectus of above mentioned factual legal aspect of the case at hand, where amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties whereafter both of them have been living together as husband and wife since 23.01.2017, enjoying the pleasures of conjugal life with all its attending benefits, this Court is of the considered view that the settlement so arrived between the parties be given effect to by quashing the criminal proceeding and as such, the present case is a fit one for exercising its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present criminal dispute alive as the continuance of the same would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

Thus, the order impugned taking cognizance of offences under Section 498(A), 379, 323 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Masaurhi in Complaint Case No. 336 (c) of 2015 and all other proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed and set aside.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

All pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed off.