ANIL KUMAR vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65144 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2016 Thana- HAYAGHAT District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Anil Kumar Son of Ganga Mandal Resident of Village - Khangraitha, P.S.-
Hayaghat, Distt - Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramashankar Singh, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-09-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present quashing petition has been preferred to
quash the cognizance order dated 24.07.2017 passed in Hayaghat P.S.
Case No. 02/2016, where learned ACJM, Darbhanga took cognizance
for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307 and 504/34
of the IPC against the petitioner.
3. Matter is of the year 2016.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that informant,
Dunnilal Mandal, recorded his fardbeyan on 30.12.2015, alleging,
inter alia, that while he was sitting in his courtyard, Ganga Mandal,
Anil Kumar and Sunil Kumar, armed with deadly weapons, entered
into his courtyard. It is alleged that Ganga Mandal exhorted others to
kill the informant, whereupon Anil Kumar assaulted him on the head
with a farsa , causing him to fell down. Thereafter, Ganga Mandal
allegedly assaulted the informant with a farsa while he was lying on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65144 of 2019 dt.07-09-2026
2/10
the ground, causing an injury to his head. On hearing the alarm, the
informant's wife came to his rescue, whereupon Sunil Kumar
allegedly pointed a pistol at her and snatched her golden locket. It is
further alleged that Ganga Mandal took away a briefcase containing
necessary documents.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that without entering into the merits of the case, the matter
between the parties has now undergone a complete change in its
circumstances. It is submitted that, with the intervention of common
relatives, friends and well-wishers of both sides, the parties have
arrived at a family compromise and good relations have been
restored between them.
6. It is further submitted that the aforesaid compromise
was initially arrived between the parties outside the Court, whereafter
the parties have also taken a further step by filing a formal
compromise petition before the learned court below. It is submitted
that the said compromise petition has been duly signed by the
informant as well as the accused persons and their respective learned
counsel.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the
aforesaid settlement, the informant does not want to proceed with the
criminal case any further and the prosecution also does not intend to
lead evidence in support of the case. It is, therefore, submitted that
continuation of the criminal proceeding, particularly in view of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65144 of 2019 dt.07-09-2026
3/10
subsequent settlement between the parties, would serve no purpose
and would amount to abuse of the process of law.
8. Learned counsel has also drawn attention of this
Court towards the second compromise petition, filed before the court
below, wherein the parties have categorically stated that all disputes
between them have been patched up and good feelings have been
restored. It is further stated therein that the compromise has been
entered into according to the free will of both parties and without any
threat or coercion.
9. It is submitted that a separate petition seeking
permission to compromise has also been filed by the informant,
thereby demonstrating that the settlement is not merely a unilateral
assertion on behalf of the petitioner, but has been consciously
accepted by the informant also.
10. In support of his submission learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as
available through Naushey Ali and Others Vs. State of U.P. and
Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 292 , particularly with regard to the
exercise of inherent jurisdiction in case where Section 307 IPC is
also alleged.
11. Learned counsel for petitioner has also placed
reliance upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available
through State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shamsher Singh, 2025
INSC 503 , with regard to the circumstances in which the nature of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65144 of 2019 dt.07-09-2026
4/10
injury, weapon and intention/knowledge are relevant for determining
the applicability of Section 307 IPC.
12. Learned APP appearing for the State, having regard
to the subsequent development and the compromise arrived at
between the parties, has opposed the prayer only on the ground that
some of the offences alleged are non-compoundable in nature.
13. This Court has considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the materials available on record.
14. At the outset, it would be apposite to take note of
the legal position regarding exercise of power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. in respect of non-compoundable offences where the parties
have settled their dispute.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naushey Ali Case
(supra) , while considering the scope of the inherent jurisdiction of
the High Court in a case involving, inter alia, Section 307 IPC,
noticed the principles laid down in State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi
Narayan, [(2019) 5 SCC 688] & Narinder Singh Vs. State of
Punjab, [(2014) 6 SCC 466].
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, noticed
that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal
proceedings involving non-compoundable offences can be exercised
where the dispute is overwhelmingly and predominantly of a civil,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65144 of 2019 dt.07-09-2026
5/10
private, matrimonial or family character and the parties have resolved
the entire dispute amongst themselves. At the same time, the Court
has cautioned that such power should not ordinarily be exercised in
respect of heinous and serious offences having a serious impact upon
society.
17. So far as Section 307 IPC is concerned, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Naushey Ali Case (supra) has further clarified
that the High Court should not rest its decision merely because
Section 307 IPC finds mention in the FIR or charge-sheet. After
investigation, the Court can examine the nature of injury, whether the
injury was caused on vital or delicate parts of the body, the nature of
weapon used and other surrounding circumstances, for determining
whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is supported by sufficient
material.
18. The aforesaid principle assumes relevance in the
present case, as the investigation has already concluded and the
material brought on record indicates that the petitioner was not sent
up by the police for trial. The medical material relied upon by the
petitioner also records simple injury.
19. At this juncture, this Court is also conscious of the
legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court through Shamsher Singh
Case (supra) . In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
emphasized that for attracting Section 307 IPC, it is not necessary
that the hurt caused must necessarily be grievous; what is required is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65144 of 2019 dt.07-09-2026
6/10
proof of the requisite intention or knowledge to cause death. In that
case, the accused had fired an AK-47 service weapon, resulting in
four grievous injuries, and the circumstances clearly demonstrated
the requisite intention.
20. The ratio of Shamsher Singh Case (supra) ,
therefore, requires the Court to examine the surrounding
circumstances rather than proceeding merely on the nature of injury.
In the present case, however, the factual circumstances are materially
different. Here, the medical material indicates simple injury; the
petitioner was not sent up by the investigating agency; and, more
importantly, the parties have subsequently resolved their entire
dispute through two successive stages of settlement.
21. Thus, this Court is not proceeding on the premise
that Section 307 IPC would stand excluded merely because the injury
is simple. Rather, the question before this Court is whether, having
regard to the entire factual matrix, the materials collected during
investigation and the subsequent voluntary settlement between the
parties, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner
would serve any useful purpose.
22. From the record, this Court finds that the parties
have settled their dispute in two distinct stages.
23. Firstly, with the intervention of common relatives,
friends and well-wishers of both sides, a family compromise was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65144 of 2019 dt.07-09-2026
7/10
arrived at between the parties. The material placed on record
specifically states that good relations between the parties have been
restored and that the informant does not now want to proceed with
the matter.
24. Secondly, the parties thereafter placed their
settlement before the court below by filing a formal compromise
petition, duly signed by the informant, the accused persons and their
respective learned counsel. The said compromise records that the
disputes between the parties have been patched up, good feelings
have been restored and the parties do not want to proceed with the
case any further.
25. The second compromise is of particular
significance because the parties have not merely stated before this
Court that the matter has been settled. They have also taken a formal
step before the court below, where the compromise has been reduced
into writing and the informant has filed a separate petition seeking
permission to compromise.
26. The record, therefore, demonstrates a consistent
course of conduct on the part of the parties. The first compromise
resulted in restoration of their relationship and the second
compromise represents the formal affirmation of the same settlement
before the Court.
27. In the facts and circumstances of the present case,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65144 of 2019 dt.07-09-2026
8/10
this Court finds that the dispute has essentially remained personal in
nature and the parties themselves have chosen to bury their
differences. The informant no longer desires to pursue the
prosecution and there is no material before this Court to suggest that
continuation of the prosecution would advance any overriding public
interest.
28. It is also relevant that the occurrence is of the year
2015, whereas the cognizance order was passed in the year 2017. The
parties have now, after passage of considerable time, voluntarily
resolved their differences. The continuation of the proceeding,
despite the two settlements, would consequently only prolong a
dispute which the parties themselves have chosen to bring to an end.
29. In Naushey Ali Case (supra) , the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, while dealing with allegations including Section 307
IPC, ultimately examined the nature of the weapon and injury and
found that, on the facts of that case, the offence did not fall in
category of cases where relief should be denied despite settlement.
The Court thereafter gave effect to the settlement between the parties.
30. The present case also deserves consideration in the
aforesaid factual and legal background. This Court has not
overlooked the allegation under Section 307 IPC. Rather, after taking
into consideration the nature of injury, the result of investigation, the
fact that petitioner was not sent up by the police, and most
importantly two successive compromises entered between the parties,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65144 of 2019 dt.07-09-2026
9/10
this Court finds that continuation of the proceeding against the
petitioner would not serve any meaningful purpose.
31. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is intended to secure the ends of justice and to
prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The same is required to be
exercised carefully and not mechanically. In the present case, the
subsequent conduct of the parties, their voluntary settlement and
restoration of cordial relations, read with the material collected
during investigation, persuade this Court that the continuation of the
criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of the
Court.
32. Accordingly, in view of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, particularly the two compromises entered
into between the parties, the nature of the injury, the result of
investigation and the stand of the informant, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the criminal proceeding against the petitioner
deserves to be brought to an end to secure the ends of justice.
33. Accordingly, by taking note of guidelines as
mentioned in Naushey Ali Case (supra) & Shamsher Singh Case
(supra) , impugned order dated 24.07.2017 as passed by the learned
A.C.J.M., Darbhanga in Hayaghat P.S. Case No. 02 of 2016, G.R.
No. 70 of 2016, alongwith all its entire consequential criminal
proceeding qua the petitioner is hereby quashed/set-aside, to secure

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65144 of 2019 dt.07-09-2026
10/10
the ends of justice.
34. It is made clear that the present order is confined to
the petitioner and shall not affect the criminal proceeding, if any,
against the other accused persons.
35. Hence, this application stands allowed.
36. TCR (Trial Court Records), if any, be returned to
the learned Trial Court alongwith the copy of this judgment.


(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
S.Tripathi/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 07.09.2026
Transmission Date 07.09.2026