Patna High Court – Orders
Ram Swaroop Gupta And Anr vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 21 April, 2026
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31837 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-523 Year-2016 Thana- MUNGER COMPLAINT CASE
District- Munger
======================================================
1. Ram Swaroop Gupta, Son of Ram Awatar Tanti
2. Rita Devi, Wife of Ram Swaroop Gupta, Both resident of Village- Akta
Nagar, A. House No. 39, Stree no. 01, Behind D.M.W. Patiyala, P.O.-
Patiyala, P.S.- Nabha, District- Patiyala, In the State of Punjab, PIN Code-
147001.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Jyoti Devi, Wife of Vikash Kumar, Daughter of late Hira Lal, Resident of
village- Chhoti Daultpur, P.S.- Jamalpur, District- Munger.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anish Chandra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. S.K. Thakur, Advocate
: Mr. Adity Kumar Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
6 21-04-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and learned APP for the State.
2. The present application has been filed on behalf of
the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash
the order dated 04.01.2017 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Munger (hereinafter referred to as
‘Magistrate’) in connection with Complaint Case No. 523(C) of
2016 wherein the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
offence under Section 323, 504 and 498A of the Indian Penal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31837 of 2018(6) dt.21-04-2026
2/8
Code, 1860 and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 against the petitioners herein, who are in-laws of the O.P.
No.2 and also against the husband of the O.P. No.2.
3. The brief facts of the case, as emerging from the
record, are that O.P. No.2 (complainant), namely Jyoti Devi,
instituted Complaint Case No. 523(C) of 2016 before the Court
of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, alleging inter alia
that her marriage with the son of the petitioners, namely Vikash
Kumar, was solemnized on 20.05.2015 as per Hindu rites and
customs. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, substantial
cash and articles including gold and silver ornaments and
household items were given as dowry. The complainant (O.P.
No.2) has further alleged that after a brief period of cordial
matrimonial life, she was subjected to cruelty, assault, and
harassment by her husband and his family members, including
the present petitioners (father-in-law and mother-in-law of O.P.
No.2), on account of non-fulfilment of further dowry demands
to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with other articles. It is also
alleged that her ornaments were forcibly taken away and she
was threatened with dire consequences and ouster from her
matrimonial home. Subsequently, upon non-fulfilment of the
alleged demands, the accused persons are stated to have refused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31837 of 2018(6) dt.21-04-2026
3/8
to take her back and further threatened to solemnize a second
marriage of her husband. On the basis of the said allegations,
the aforesaid Complaint Case was filed.
4. Upon perusal of the materials available on record
and after recording the solemn affirmation of the complainant as
well as the statements of the inquiry witnesses, the learned
Magistrate, prima facie, found sufficient grounds to proceed in
the matter and, accordingly, took cognizance of the offences
under Sections 323, 504 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and
under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against Vikash
Kumar (husband of O.P. No.2), Ram Swaroop Gupta (petitioner
no.1), and Rita Devi (petitioner no.2) vide the impugned order
of cognizance dated 04.01.2017 and directed issuance of
summons. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of
cognizance petitioner nos.1 and 2 filed the present Criminal
Miscellaneous Application to quash the same.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
impugned order of cognizance is wholly illegal and has been
passed without proper appreciation of the materials available on
record. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners,
being the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant
(O.P. No.2), have been falsely implicated in the present case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31837 of 2018(6) dt.21-04-2026
4/8
with ulterior motive and that the allegations made in the
complaint petition are general, omnibus and devoid of any
specific overt act so as to attract the ingredients of the alleged
offences. It is submitted that no prima facie case is made out
against the petitioners and the continuation of the criminal
proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
Learned counsel also submits that the parties have already
entered into a compromise and a petition dated 23.05.2017 to
that effect has been filed before the learned Magistrate, and as
such, in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, the
impugned order as well as the entire criminal proceeding are fit
to be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 submits that the
dispute between the parties has now been amicably settled and a
compromise petition to that effect has already been filed before
the learned Magistrate. Learned counsel further submits that
pursuant to the said settlement, the O.P. No.2 and her husband
are now living together peacefully with harmony and there is no
subsisting grievance between them. In view of the aforesaid
development, it is submitted that O.P. No.2 has no objection if
the present criminal proceeding is quashed.
7. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31837 of 2018(6) dt.21-04-2026
5/8
the compromise between the parties, the appropriate order may
be passed.
8. In the present case, upon careful examination of the
complaint petition and the materials brought on record, it
transpires that the allegations made against the present
petitioners, who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the
complainant, are largely general and omnibus in nature. Though
allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty have been levelled,
the complaint does not disclose any specific overt act or
particular instance attributable to the petitioners so as to prima
facie establish their direct involvement in the alleged offences.
The statements recorded during inquiry also appear to be
reiterative of the broad allegations made in the complaint
without assigning any distinct role to the petitioners herein.
9. It further appears from the record that the dispute
between the parties primarily arises out of matrimonial discord
between the complainant (O.P. No.2) and her husband. The
materials on record indicate that a compromise petition has also
been filed between the parties before the learned Magistrate,
suggesting that the matter is essentially private in nature. In
such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceeding
against the present petitioners, in absence of specific allegations
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31837 of 2018(6) dt.21-04-2026
6/8
and in view of the subsequent development of settlement, would
amount to abuse of the process of the Court and is not warranted
in the interest of justice.
10. Notably, it is a settled principle of law that
although offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code
and other allied provisions are non-compoundable, the High
Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, can quash criminal
proceedings where the dispute is essentially private in nature
and emanates from matrimonial discord, and the parties have
arrived at an amicable settlement. The scope of interference
under section 482 of the Cr.P.C within the ambit of inherent
power of the High Court is now well settled. The reference may
be taken of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in
B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., reported in
(2003) 4 SCC 675; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.,
reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh and Ors. v.
State of Punjab and Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466; and
Parbatbhai Aahir and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and
Anr., reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641. Now it is well settled held
that in matters predominantly bearing a civil or personal
character, particularly matrimonial disputes, such inherent
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31837 of 2018(6) dt.21-04-2026
7/8
powers may be invoked to secure the ends of justice and to
prevent abuse of the process of the Court, provided that the
compromise is bona fide, voluntary, and without any coercion.
Nonetheless, such power must be exercised cautiously, having
due regard to the nature, seriousness, and societal impact of the
alleged offences.
11. In the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Mange Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.,
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1681 has observed as under:
“29. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in
State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5
SCC 688, observed in paragraph 15.5
thereof that while exercising power under
Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal
proceedings in respect of non-compoundable
offences, which are private in nature and do
not have a serious impact on society, on the
ground that there is a settlement/compromise
between the victim and the offender, it is
necessary to consider the antecedents of the
accused; the conduct of the accused, namely,
whether the accused was absconding and
why he was absconding, how he had
managed with the complainant to enter into
a compromise, etc.
xxx xxx xxx
32. In Naushey Ali v. State of U.P., (2025) 4
SCC 78, one of us (Viswanathan, J.)
observed in paragraph 32 that proceeding
with the trial, when the parties have
amicably resolved the dispute, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31837 of 2018(6) dt.21-04-2026
8/8settled and resolved.”
12. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and
considering the nature of allegations as well as the materials
available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that
it is not justified to continue the criminal proceeding against the
petitioners. Allowing the proceeding to continue against them
would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and would
result in miscarriage of justice.
13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
04.01.2017 passed in Complaint Case No. 523(C) of 2016 by
the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger, so far
as it relates to the present petitioners, is hereby quashed and set
aside.
14. Resultantly, the entire criminal proceeding arising
therefrom qua the petitioners also stands quashed.
15. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application,
accordingly, stands allowed.
16. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Court concerned forthwith for needful compliance.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-
U T