Pritam Kumar @ Pritam Kumar Jha vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71389 of 2024
CNR No. BRHC010970722024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2022 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
1. Pritam Kumar @ Pritam Kumar Jha S/o Pawan Jha R/o Mumtaj Mohalla,
P.S-Naugachia, District-Bhagalpur
2. Pawan Jha S/o Late Newa Jha R/o Mumtaj Mohalla, P.S-Naugachia,
District-Bhagalpur
3. Kanchan Mala @ Kanchan Mala Devi W/o Pawan Jha R/o Mumtaj Mohalla,
P.S-Naugachia, District-Bhagalpur
4. Priya Choudhary W/o Shardh Kumar Choudhary R/o Panagarh Rail Colony,
Nutan Para, P.S- Khagasa, District- Bardwan (W.B.)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mona Kumari W/o Pritam Kumar, D/o Ashok Kumar R/o Mohalla- Birju
Pathak Lane, Paschim Tola, Barari, P.S.- Barari, District- Bhagalpur.
Presently residing at C/o Rahul Kumar Mahto, Village- Pradhankanta, Near
154 BN CRPF, P.O.- Baliapur, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) Pin- 828201
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha,Adv.
For the State : Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Om Prakash Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-10-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
APP for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.
2. At the outset, this Court express its concern upon
the fact that cases, which are being sent to this Court, do not
have up-to-date office notes and the subsequent applications in
the form of supplementary affidavits and other affidavits, which
have been filed in the matter, are not being tagged to the main

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71389 of 2024 dt.13-10-2026
2/6
application, as such, causing inconvenience to this Court in
process of adjudication and disposing of cases. Earlier also by
an order dated 30.09.2026 in Cr. Misc. No.45892 of 2026, the
Registry was directed in this regard but the problem,
unfortunately, still continues.
3. The concerned office is directed to do away with
such callous and irresponsible act on their part and make all
endeavor to ensure that files are not being sent to the Court for
adjudication without up-to-date office notes or without tagging
of the subsequent affidavits. In case, the same carelessness
continues, this court would be compelled to pass adverse orders
against the persons concerned, who are duty bound to monitor
the work of their subordinates.
4. The present application has been filed for
quashing of the order dated 06.09.2022 passed by learned
Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bhagalpur in connection with
Mahila P.S. Case No.28/2022, whereby cognizance has taken
against the petitioners under Sections 498A, 341, 323, 504,
506/34 of IPC and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. The brief facts of the case, as disclosed in the
F.I.R., is that accused persons assaulted the informant due to
non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and also on account of birth

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71389 of 2024 dt.13-10-2026
3/6
of a female child out of the wedlock.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted, at the outset, that while petitioner no.1 happens to be
the husband of OP No.2, petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 are the father-
in-law, mother-in-law and married sister-in-law of the O.P.
No.2. It has further been submitted that prior to the marriage of
the petitioner no.1 with O.P. No.2, he was working in the CRPF
and is presently posted at Bokaro, Jharkhand. Admittedly, the
marriage between the parties had taken place on 12.12.2018,
whereafter the O.P. No.2 had come to her matrimonial house,
but there were some adjustment issues in the family, which
spoiled the family atmosphere. It has further been submitted that
it was the O.P. No.2, who has left the house of the petitioners
and later also filed the present FIR with false and fabricated
allegations. Moreover, while petitioner no.4 is the married
sister-in-law who does not even reside with the O.P. No.2 and
her husband, has also been implicated on account of pressure
tactics. As a matter of fact, the petitioner no.1 had filed a
Matrimonial Suit for restitution of conjugal life under Section 9
of the Hindu Marriage Act, while a maintenance case has been
filed by O.P. No.2.
7. However, it appears from the pleadings that there

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71389 of 2024 dt.13-10-2026
4/6
is a child also born out of the wedlock and in the Matrimonial
Case No.454 of 2022, both the parties had reconciled their
disputes and since then they have been leading a peaceful and
conjugal life along with their child. Earlier allegations and
counter-allegations filed against each other is nothing but some
adjustment dispute and trivial bickerings between the husband
and wife in matrimonial relations. However, sanity prevailed on
both parties and now they have come together as family.
8. Further, in pursuance of an amicable settlement
between the parties, a joint compromise petition dated
16.09.2026, duly signed by both the parties, has also been filed
before this Court, which is reassurance of the fact that the
parties have resumed their matrimonial life and good
matrimonial relations have been restored. It has been
specifically stated in paragraph no. 9 of the said affidavit that
O.P. No.2 has no objection if the order taking cognizance dated
06.09.2022 and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of
Mahila P.S. Case No.28 of 2022 are quashed by this Court in
exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
9. In this regard, the judgment in the case of Mange
Ram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. [2025 INSC 962] is
being gainfully referred and paragraph no. 31 thereof is being
quoted hereunder :-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71389 of 2024 dt.13-10-2026
5/6
“31. We also refer to Gian Singh vs. State of
Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 wherein this Court
observed that where the High Court quashes a
criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that
the dispute between the offender and the victim has
been settled, although the offences are not
compoundable, it does so as in its opinion,
continuation of criminal proceedings will 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, securing the ends of justice
being the ultimate guiding factor. In this regard, a
specific reference was made to offences arising out
of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or
a family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the
victim but the offender and the victim have settled
all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of
the fact that such offences have not been made
compoundable. The High Court may, within the
framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal
proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR 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 the criminal
proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of
justice shall be defeated.”
10. Further, 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, proceedings 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.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71389 of 2024 dt.13-10-2026
6/6
11. Thus, taking into consideration the
developments that have been taken place in the case, leading to
a peaceful matrimonial relationship between the parties,
continuance of any further proceedings would consume the
precious time of the Courts, and would also result in abuse of
the process of the court. In order to give a peaceful quietus to all
the litigation between the parties, this Court would proceed to
quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
12. As such, impugned order dated 06.09.2022
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bhagalpur in
connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.28/2022 and all
prosecution arising therefrom as against these petitioners stands
quashed.
13. The instant application is accordingly allowed.
14. Let a copy of this judgment be placed before
the learned Registrar General for further needful.

(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 16.10.2026
Transmission Date 16.10.2026