Disposed¶24

Anuranjan Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC15 May 2026CR. MISC./34952/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court; Cr. Misc. No.34952 of 2026 in Cr. Misc. No.31676 of 2024; PS Case No.-1142 of 2022, Patna Complaint Case; decided 15-05-2026 by Justice Soni Shrivastava; modification/extension of time for one-time settlement payment of Rs.4 lakhs in Section 498A IPC case; two-month extension granted; liberty to Court concerned for reasonable further accommodation; parties bound to timeline; last installment of Rs.1 lakh tied to mutual consent divorce application under Section 13B Hindu Marriage Act; application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Extension of time by another two months from receipt/production of copy of the order for making the remaining one-time settlement payments, with liberty to the Court concerned to allow reasonable further accommodation; parties directed to adhere to the timeline. ¶24

Anuranjan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the time period fixed under order dated 06.05.2025 in Cr. Misc. No.31676 of 2024 for completing the one-time settlement payments to opposite party no.2 should be extended.

¶18

Court's answer

The time period for making the rest of the settlement payment is extended to another two months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The Court concerned may be at liberty to exercise its discretion for any further accommodation in the larger interest of giving final effect to the settlement arrived between the parties by way of order dated 06.05.2025 in Cr. Misc. No.31676/2024.

¶23

Key takeaways

The parties are bound to adhere to the timeline and the Court concerned would give indulgence only to the extent which is reasonable and not beyond that.ratio¶23
In a Section 498A IPC case where compromise has been reached between the parties and some payment has already been made, the time factor should not come in the way of settlement between the parties if both parties are agreeable to the same.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Soni Shrivastava, J.), by order dated 15-05-2026, disposed of an application (Cr. Misc. No.34952 of 2026, arising out of Cr. Misc. No.31676 of 2024 / PS Case No.-1142 of 2022, Patna Complaint Case) by the petitioner-husband seeking modification of the order dated 06.05.2025 for extension of time to complete one-time settlement payments totalling Rs.4 lakhs to opposite party no.2 (his wife) in a Section 498A IPC matrimonial dispute. Noting that the compromise had been reached and Rs.75,000/- plus Rs.20,000/- already paid, the Court held that the time factor should not come in the way of settlement where both parties are agreeable, extended the time for the balance payment by another two months from receipt/production of the copy of the order, left the Court concerned at liberty to grant reasonable further accommodation to give final effect to the settlement, and made clear that the parties remain bound to the timeline. The last installment of Rs.1 lakh remained linked to filing of a mutual consent divorce application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act on the date of admission.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34952 of 2026

¶2

¶3

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31676 of 2024

¶4

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1142 Year-2022 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-

¶5

Patna

¶6

======================================================

¶7

Anuranjan Kumar S/o Sri Anuj Sharma @ Kumar Sharma R/o Village - Tagar toli, P.S. -Namkum, P.S. - Namkum, Dist. - Ranchi(Jharkhand).

¶8

... ... Petitioner/s

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Bihar

¶11

Laxmi Kumari W/o Anuranjan Kuma, D/o Anand Kumar Sharma or Anant Kumar Sharma r R/o Kaganghat Chugany, P.S. - Chowk, Dist. - Patna. Sasural - Simdarol, Tangar Toli, P.S. - Namkum, Dist. - Ranchi(Jharkhand), Pin Code - 834001.

¶12

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Nelima Sinha, Advocate Mr. Vivek Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anil Prasad Singh, APP ======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER

¶15

2 15-05-2026

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP

¶17

for the State.

¶18

The present application has been filed for modification of order dated 06.05.2025 in Cr. Misc. No.31676 of 2024 seeking extension of time for making payment to the opposite party no.2, which had been agreed between the parties to arrive at one time settlement. 34952

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of total settlement amount of Rs.4 lakhs, first installment of Rs.75,000/was paid at the time of furnishing bail bonds and additional amount of Rs.20,000/- has already been paid. The petitioner is also ready to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs, which the petitioner undertakes to pay

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34952 of 2026(2) dt.15-05-2026 2/2

¶21

within a period of one month from today and the last installment of Rs.1 lakh after filing of mutual consent divorce application under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, on the date of admission, which had been earlier agreed upon by order dated 06.05.2025.

¶22

Since the present case relates to Section 498A IPC where compromise has been reached between the parties and some payment has already been made, the time factor should not come in way of settlement between the parties, if both parties are agreeable to the same.

¶23

In such view of the matter, the time period of making the rest of the payment is extended to another two months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. However, the Court concerned may be at liberty to exercise its discretion for any further accommodation in the larger interest of giving final effect to the settlement arrived between the parties, by way of order dated 06.05.2025 passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No.31676/2024. It is at the same time made clear that the parties are bound to adhere to the timeline and the Court concerned would give indulgence only to the extent which is reasonable and not beyond that.

¶24

The application stands disposed of with the above directions and observations.

¶25

(Soni Shrivastava, J)

¶26

Harsh/- U T

Anuranjan Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuranjan Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogendra Kumar@ Jagu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Mazhar Alam Vs The State of Bihar

Prince Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sonu Nut Vs The State of Bihar

Rekha Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Jagarnath Kumar Rai Vs The State of Bihar