Patna High Court
Criminal Procedure and EvidenceCriminal Law

Section 482 permits quashing where parties amicably settle a purely private dispute.

BALMUKUND @ BALMUKUN @ SANJEEV KUMAR vs The State of Bihar

Patna High CourtJUDGMENT: October 13, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Section 482 permits quashing where parties amicably settle a purely private dispute.. BALMUKUND @ BALMUKUN @ SANJEEV KUMAR vs The State of Bihar. Patna High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioners sought to quash the order dated 30 June 2022 by which the S.D.J.M., Dehri-On-Sone, took cognizance in Dehri (D.L.M.) P.S. Case No. 232 of 2017 for offences under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 120(B) IPC

Source reference: p. 1

The case alleged that the petitioners and others operated a fictitious organisation and obtained money from the informant and others

Source reference: p. 2

The petitioners disputed their alleged roles and the sufficiency of the material against them

Source reference: p. 2

They later offered to pay the informant Rs. 2,42,000; the informant accepted the demand draft and agreed to settle the dispute, stating that he had no objection to quashing the proceedings against the petitioners

Source reference: p. 3
02

Issues

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners in light of the parties’ settlement

Source reference: pp. 3–4

Whether the cognizance order and resulting prosecution, insofar as they concerned the petitioners, should be set aside

Source reference: pp. 1, 4
03

Law Applied

Section 482 Cr.P.C. preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

Source reference: no citation

In Parbatbhai Aahir and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr., (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Supreme Court held that an amicable settlement may be considered in exercising that power where the dispute is private, the compromise is voluntary and free from coercion, and continuation of the prosecution would serve no legitimate purpose

Source reference: p. 3

The underlying prosecution invoked Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 120(B) IPC

Source reference: p. 1
04

Reasoning

The Court accepted the parties’ settlement after noting that the agreed sum of Rs. 2,42,000 had been paid by demand draft and that the informant’s counsel expressly consented to quashing

Source reference: p. 3

It found no external influence on the compromise and treated the dispute as private, without an impact on society at large

Source reference: pp. 3–4

Applying Parbatbhai Aahir, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution against the petitioners would serve no legitimate or useful purpose

Source reference: p. 4
05

Holding

The Court allowed the application and quashed the cognizance order dated 30 June 2022, together with all consequential prosecution, insofar as it related to the petitioners
06

Acts & Sections Cited

5 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731

Patna High Court

Original Court PDF

BALMUKUND @ BALMUKUN @ SANJEEV KUMARvsThe State of Bihar

Patna High Court · October 13, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment