Saloni Kumari vs The State Of Bihar & Anr.

Date : 17-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

The instant application has been filed for quashing of order dated 20.03.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Patna, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No. 9616 (C) of 2022, for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as ‘FIR’).

From perusal of the record it appears that the operation of impugned order dated 20.03.2023 and subsequent proceedings arising out of the Complaint Case No. 9616 (C) of 2022 was stayed by the co-ordinate bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 13.08.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 67950 of 2023. Therefore, it is clear that there is no subsequent development with regard to the stage of the present case.

Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner has submitted, at the outset, that the dispute between the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 has been amicably resolved. Further, it has been pointed out that in this regard a Joint affidavit as well as a supplementary joint affidavit has been brought on record by both the parties, wherein opposite party no.2 has categorically stated that she has no objection with the quashing of the criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 9616 (C) of 2022.

Further submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the parties had instituted criminal proceedings against each other, including the proceedings arising out of B.S. City P.S. Case No. 101 of 2022 in connection with Sessions Trial No. 259 of 2024, which is pending adjudication before the Court concerned. However, pursuant to the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, in the present case, the parties do not intend to pursue the afore-mentioned criminal proceedings and with regard to this, a written deed of amicable settlement on their behalf has been annexed (Annexure-A) to the Supplementary joint affidavit .

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not raise any objection to the criminal proceedings being quashed.

The issue with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings with respect to offences which are private in nature and do not have serious impact on society, wherein the settlement/compromise has been reached between the victim and the offender, has been settled by various judicial pronouncements to the extent that even non-compoundable offence can be quashed by exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, it had been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that if a dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled, although the offences are not compoundable, the same may be quashed by the High Court within the framework of inherent power upon coming to finding that continuation of such criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored. The guiding fact is securing the ends of justice and by not quashing such criminal proceedings, justice itself shall be causality and the ends of justice shall be defeated.

The above mentioned legal position has been reiterated in the case of Naushey Ali vs. State of U.P., reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78 wherein it has been observed 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 of Court particularly when the dispute is settled and resolved.

In a very recent judgment in the case of Mange Ram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. [2025 INSC 962] and also in case of Suresh C. Singal & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (Cr. Appeal No. 3862 of 2024), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that criminal proceedings, in cases involving an overwhelmingly civil character, arising out of a purely private transaction, where the parties have amicably resolved their dispute, ought not to be allowed to continue.

Thus, taking into consideration the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties coupled with the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred, and also taking in view of the fact that joint affidavit dated 07.08.2026 has been filed on behalf of both the parties, i.e, the petitioner and the opposite party no.2, in view of an amicable settlement having been reached between them, which is in the form of a deed of amicable settlement (Annexure-A) and considering the fact that the opposite party no.2 has no objection if the present application is allowed, the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.9616 of 2022 is fit to be quashed.

This Court thus finds no justification in allowing the present prosecution to continue, especially in wake of the compromise. In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 20.03.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Patna and entire prosecution arising therefrom stands quashed.

Accordingly, the instant application is allowed.