Lav Kumar vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51774 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2017 Thana- PARASBIGHA District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Lav Kumar son of Arvind Kumar Village- Chainpura Ps- Paras Bigha Dist-
Jehanabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Usha Kumari W/o Sri Ajit Kumar, R/o Village-Karauta, P.S.-Paras Bigha,
District-Jehanabad.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Satyendra Prasad, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Narendra Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-09-2026
The instant application had been filed on behalf of
petitioner for stay of the judgment of conviction dated
21.01.2023 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Jehanabad in Trial No.711/2022, arising out of Paras Bigha P.S.
Case No.43/2017 dated 16.04.2017, whereby and whereunder
the learned Trial Court had been pleased to convict the petitioner
and his father for the offence punishable under Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act (in short ‘D.P. Act’) and sentenced him
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine
of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of the same, he has further
been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
The petitioner, however seeks quashing of the entire criminal

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51774 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
2/6
proceeding, including the judgment of conviction, in the wake of
subsequent development of an amicable settlement between the
parties leading to resolution of dispute.
2. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the
F.I.R. is that the marriage of the informant’s daughter was fixed
with this petitioner and Rs.12 lakhs was paid for marriage
expenses. However, the marriage was not solemnized between
them and yet the money in questions was not returned.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
at the outset, that the appeal against judgment of conviction is
pending before the learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge-I, Jehanabad bearing Cr. Appeal No.07/2023.
4. Learned counsels appearing on both sides have
jointly submitted that the parties to the litigation have amicably
settled the matter between them by the intervention of the good
Office of both the counsels. The dispute between the parties has
finally culminated into a compromise. A joint affidavit in the
form of second supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of
petitioner bringing on record the fact that petitioner has offered
payment of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) to the O.P.
No.2 as one time settlement between the parties, to which the
O.P. No.2 has agreed.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51774 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
3/6
5. In furtherance of such settlement, xerox copy of
bank draft of Rs.15,00,000/- bearing Cheque No. 585026 dated
01.09.2026 in the name of O.P. No.2 has been brought on record
and the original demand draft is being handed over to the
informant herself who is present in this Court which she duly
accepts.
6. In the present case, the petitioner is a convicted
accused and appellant in Cr. Appeal No.07/2023, but
considering judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court with regard to the fact that in cases which is not heinous
in nature, predominantly involving private dispute between the
parties in which no public policy is involved, and where the
parties have amicably settled their dispute and arrived at a
genuine compromise, the inherent power under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the entire criminal
proceedings. However, besides the requirement of a bona fide
compromise, there is further requirement of the appeal being
pending for consideration in such cases of post-conviction
quashing of proceedings based on compromise as held in the
cases of Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , reported in
(2022) 13 SCC 635 , Ramgopal & Anr. vs. State of M.P.,
reported in (2022) 14 SCC 531 . Very recently in the case of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51774 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
4/6
State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Avtar Singh & Ors. [2026 INSC
934] , the principle laid down in Ramgopal (supra) has been
reiterated and also considering the case of Narinder Singh and
others vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC
466 , the order of the High Court quashing the original F.I.R.
despite conviction of the petitioner based on compromise, was
not interfered with and rather upheld. Paragraph No.13 of the
aforementioned judgment of Ramgopal (supra) is being quoted
hereunder:-
“ 13. It appears to us that criminal
proceedings involving non-heinous offences or
where the offences are pre-dominantly of a private
nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact
that trial has already been concluded or appeal
stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out
punishment is not the sole form of delivering
justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is
always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes
without saying, that the cases where compromise
is struck post-conviction, the High Court ought to
exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in
view the circumstances surrounding the incident,
the fashion in which the compromise has been
arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and
seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of
the accused, before and after the incidence. The
touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power
under Section 482CrPC would be to secure the
ends of justice. There can be no hard-and-fast line
constricting the power of the High Court to do

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51774 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
5/6
substantial justice. A restrictive construction of
inherent powers under Section 482CrPC may lead
to rigid or specious justice, which in the given
facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead
to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases
where heinous offences have been proved against
perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be
extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [Narinder
Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, para
29 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] and Laxmi Narayan
[State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC
688, para 15 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 706] .”
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner
has also pointed out another appeal bearing Cr. Appeal
No.11/2023 (Usha Kumari vs. State of Bihar) has been filed by
the present informant for enhancement of the sentence which is
pending before the same Court i.e. learned A.D.J.-I, Jehanabad
which also she does not desire to pursue.
8. Taking into consideration the entire factual
scenario of a bona fide and genuine compromise having been
effected between the parties and considering that the present
case is one of private dispute between the parties, in the
backdrop that appeal against conviction is pending adjudication,
this Court is of the considered view that inherent power of 482
Cr.P.C. can be invoked in the interest of justice to quash criminal
proceedings, in order to bring a peaceful quietus to the litigation.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51774 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
6/6
As such, the entire criminal prosecution arising out of Paras
Bigha P.S. Case No.43/2017 dated 16.04.2017 is hereby
quashed, which would include any consequential
judgment/order passed in Trial No.711/2022 arising out of the
said F.I.R., rendering both the Cr. Appeal No.07/2023 and Cr.
Appeal No.11/2023 as infructuous.
9. It is made clear that the present order is being
made in the presence of the parties to the litigation along with
their respective counsels and as such, there is no reason for this
Court to doubt that there are any elements of threat or coercion
behind the aforesaid compromise. This Court has duly satisfied
itself before rendering the present order.
10. Accordingly, the present application stands
allowed.

(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 07.09.2026
Transmission Date 07.09.2026