Anuj Avinash vs The State of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7120 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2023 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Banka
======================================================
1. Vivekanand Thakur S/O Jai Narayan Thakur Resident of Usha Bhawan,
Village- Bharatkhand, Distt- Khagaria. Presently resides at c/o Late Ram lal
Thakur, Near Badi Durga Asthan, P.S.- Amarpur, Distt- Banka.
2. Veena Thakur W/O Vivekanand Thakur Resident of Usha Bhawan, Village-
Bharatkhand, Distt- Khagaria. Presently resides at c/o Late Ram lal Thakur,
Near Badi Durga Asthan, P.S.- Amarpur, Distt- Banka.
3. Rishabh Chandan S/O Vivekanand Thakur Resident of Usha Bhawan,
Village- Bharatkhand, Distt- Khagaria. Presently resides at c/o Late Ram lal
Thakur, Near Badi Durga Asthan, P.S.- Amarpur, Distt- Banka.
4. Keerti D/O Vivekanand Thakur Resident of Usha Bhawan, Village-
Bharatkhand, Distt- Khagaria. Presently resides at c/o Late Ram lal Thakur,
Near Badi Durga Asthan, P.S.- Amarpur, Distt- Banka.
5. Pragya D/O Vievekand Thakur, W/O Ajhit Kumar Jha Resident of Usha
Bhawan, Village- Bharatkhand, Distt- Khagaria. Presently resides at c/o Late
Ram lal Thakur, Near Badi Durga Asthan, P.S.- Amarpur, Distt- Banka.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anubha Nidhi W/o Anuj Avinash, D/O Late Dilip Kumar Rajhans R/O
Mohalla- House No. 38, Babu Tola, Behind DM Residence, P.S- Banka,
Distt.- Banka.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 22491 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2023 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Banka
======================================================
Anuj Avinash Son of Vivekanad Thakur Permanent resident of Usha Bhawan,
Village - Bharatkhand, District - Khagaria through presently resident of C/o.
Late Ram Lal Thakur, Near Badi Durga Asthan, P.S. - Amarpur, District -
Banka
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anubha Nidhi Wife of Anuj Avinash. D/o. Late Dilip Kumar Rajhans
Resident of Mohalla - House No. 38, Babu Tola, Behind DM Residence, P.S.
- Banka, District - Banka
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7120 of 2025 dt.02-09-2026
2/12
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 7120 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Swapnil Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 22491 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Swapnil Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Satyendra Prasad, APP
For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 02-09-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.
2.
2. Cr. Misc. No. 7120 of 2025 has been filed by the
petitioners under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 (corresponding
to Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973) for quashing the F.I.R. bearing
Mahila P.S. Case No. 23 of 2023, including charge-sheet
registered under Sections- 498A, 323, 504, 506/34 of I.P.C. and
Section-3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of
learned S.D.J.M., Banka.
3. Cr. Misc. No. 22491 of 2025 has been filed by
the petitioner under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023
(corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973) for quashing the
order dated 01.04.2024, passed in Mahila P.S. Case No. 23 of
2023, passed by learned S.D.J.M., Banka, whereby and
whereunder the learned Magistrate took cognizance under
Sections- 498A, 427, 341, 323, 504, 506/34 of I.P.C. and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7120 of 2025 dt.02-09-2026
3/12
Section-3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the O.P. No.
2 solemnized her marriage with Anuj Avinash (petitioner in Cr.
Misc. No. 22491 of 2025) on 28.04.2019, but after a few days
of the marriage, Anuj Avinash (husband) and petitioners in
Cr.Misc. No. 7120 of 2025, namely Vivekanand Thakur (Father-
in-law), Veena Devi (Mother-in-law), Rishabh Chandan (Elder
Brother-in-law), Keerti Kumari (Sister-in-law), Pragya (Sister-
in-law) started to torture her in various ways due to non
fulfillment of dowry and due to that reason the O.P. No. 2 was
forced to live at her paternal house since last 2.5 years and the
accused persons denied to pay her daily expenses and medical
expenses and when the parents of the O.P. No. 2 went to
reconcile the issue with the husband and his family members,
they assured them of settlement, but after requests being made
3-4 times, the husband refused to accept the O.P. No.2.
5. Both parties appeared in person and stated that
all the disputes between the parties have already been amicably
settled. The Court has passed the decree of divorce by mutual
consent on the application filed under Section-13B of Hindu
Marriage Act and mutual divorce has already been effected. In
terms of settlement, they do not want to proceed with the case.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7120 of 2025 dt.02-09-2026
4/12
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned APP for the
State jointly submit that in the changed circumstances, the
continuance of the criminal proceeding would be abuse of the
process of the Court. Since the offence under Section 498A IPC
is not compoundable, the trial court is helpless to close the
proceeding.
7. Perused the records.
8. Though the offence under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same is not compoundable.
However, Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. Vs.
The State of Haryana and Ors., reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675,
as also in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs.Babita
Raghuvanshi, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58 , examined the
ambit and scope of inherent power of the High Court under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in quashing of the criminal
proceeding in non-compoundable offences relating to
matrimonial dispute.
9. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi (supra) held in paragraphs No.
15 to 17 as under:-
“15. In our view, it is the
duty of the courts to encourage
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7120 of 2025 dt.02-09-2026
5/12
genuine settlements of matrimonial
disputes, particularly, when the same
are on considerable increase. Even if
the offences are non-compoundable, if
they relate to matrimonial disputes
and the court is satisfied that the
parties have settled the same
amicably and without any pressure,
we hold that for the purpose of
securing ends of justice, Section 320
of the Code would not be a bar to the
exercise of power of quashing of FIR,
complaint or the subsequent criminal
proceedings.
16. There has been an outburst of
matrimonial disputes in recent times.
The institution of marriage occupies
an important place and it has an
important role to play in the society.
Therefore, every effort should be
made in the interest of the individuals
in order to enable them to settle down
in life and live peacefully. If the
parties ponder over their defaults and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7120 of 2025 dt.02-09-2026
6/12
terminate their disputes amicably by
mutual agreement instead of fighting
it out in a court of law, in order to do
complete justice in the matrimonial
matters, the courts should be less
hesitant in exercising its
extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to
state that the power under Section
482 should be exercised sparingly and
with circumspection only when the
court is convinced, on the basis of
material on record, that allowing the
proceedings to continue would be an
abuse of the process of the court or
that the ends of justice require that the
proceedings ought to be quashed. We
also make it clear that exercise of
such power would depend upon the
facts and circumstances of each case
and it has to be exercised in
appropriate cases in order to do real
and substantial justice for the
administration of which alone the
courts exist. It is the duty of the courts
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7120 of 2025 dt.02-09-2026
7/12
to encourage genuine settlements of
matrimonial disputes and Section482
of the Code enables the High
Court and Article 142 of the
Constitution enables this Court to
pass such orders.
17. In the light of the above
discussion, we hold that the High
Court in exercise of its inherent
powers can quash the criminal
proceedings or FIR or complaint in
appropriate cases in order to meet the
ends
of justice and Section 320 of the Code
does not limit or affect the powers of
the High Court under Section 482of
the Code. Under these circumstances,
we set aside the impugned judgment
of the High Court dated 04.07.2012
passed in M.CR.C. No. 2877 of 2012
and quash the proceedings in
Criminal Case No. 4166 of 2011
pending on the file of
Judicial Magistrate Class-I, Indore.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7120 of 2025 dt.02-09-2026
8/12
10. Similarly, in B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of
Haryana & Anr. [(2003) 4 SCC 675] , the Supreme Court had
held that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section
482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. It upheld the powers of
the High Court under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
criminal proceedings where the disputes is of private nature and
the compromise is entered into between the parties, who are
willing to settle their differences amicably.
11. However, in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab,
reported in (2010) 15 SCC 118 , a two Judge bench of the
Supreme Court doubted the correctness of the decision of the
Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi (Supra) and referred the matter to
a larger Bench. The question referred to was lucidly explained
by a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh
vs.State of Punjab, since reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 . The
Court explained the difference between 320 and 482 of the
Cr.P.C. and held that:
“Quashing of offence or
criminal proceedings on the ground
of settlement between an offender and
victim is not the same thing as
compounding of offence. They are
different and not interchangeable.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7120 of 2025 dt.02-09-2026
9/12
Strictly speaking, the power of
compounding of offences given to a
court under Section 320 is materially
different from the quashing of
criminal proceedings by the High
Court in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction. In compounding of
offences, power of a criminal court is
circumscribed by the provisions
contained in Section 320 and the
court is guided solely and squarely
thereby while, on the other hand, the
formation of opinion by the High
Court for quashing a criminal offence
or criminal proceeding or criminal
complaint is guided by the material
on record as to whether the ends of
justice would justify such exercise of
power although the ultimate
consequence may be acquittal or
dismissal of indictment.”
12. The present petitions have been filed under
Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023. It is pertinent to quote Section-
528 of B.N.S.S. which reads as under:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7120 of 2025 dt.02-09-2026
10/12
“ 528. Saving of inherent powers of High
Court.-- Nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit
or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make
such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any
order under this Sanhita, or to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice.”
13. From a bare reading of the aforesaid Section, it
is evident that the earlier provision of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
presently covered under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. and Section
528 of B.N.S.S. is just a replica of Section 482 Cr.P.C. Thus, it
is amply clear that the High Court may quash criminal
proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
power under Section 482 of the Code which is
unaffected by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Though the
two powers are distinct and different yet the ultimate
consequence may be same viz., acquittal of the accused or
dismissal of indictment. Inherent power of the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C is seemingly unfettered but it has to be
exercised in accordance with the limitation mentioned in the
provision itself, i.e. (i) to give effect to any order under the Code
of Criminal Procedure. (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of
any Court or (iii) to secure the ends of justice.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7120 of 2025 dt.02-09-2026
11/12
14. Having considered the provisions under Section
482 Cr.P.C and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in B.S.
Joshi (Supra), Gian Singh(Supra-2), Jitendra Rahuvanshi
(supra) and M.A. Arshad and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and
Anr. reported in 2017 SCC Online Pat 2779 , it is clear that, if
the matter relates to matrimonial disputes and the Court is
satisfied that the dispute has been settled by the parties
amicably, there would be no bar under Section 320 of the
Cr.P.C. for exercise of inherent power of the quashing of the
First Information Report, complaint or the subsequent criminal
proceedings even if the offences are non- compoundable.
15. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and also to the fact that the parties have resolved
their dispute amicably, which has not been contested by the
opposite party no.2, this Court is of the considered view that
allowing the further proceedings to continue in the trial court
would not be in the interest of justice as the same may lead to
unnecessary harassment, agony and pain not only to the
petitioners, but also to the opposite party no. 2 and would
tantamount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
16. Therefore, the present petitions i.e. Cr. Misc.
No. 7120 of 2025 and Cr. Misc. No. 22491 of 2025 (filed under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7120 of 2025 dt.02-09-2026
12/12
Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 corresponding to Section 482
Cr.P.C., 1973) are allowed and F.I.R. bearing Mahila P.S. Case
No. 23 of 2023, including charge-sheet in Cr. Misc. No. 7120 of
2025 and the impugned cognizance order in Cr. Misc. No.
22491 of 2025 are hereby quashed.
17. Interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
K.C.Jha/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE 20.08.2026
Uploading Date 02.09.2026
Transmission Date 02.09.2026