Allowed¶¶34

Vicky Kumar @ Vivek Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Quashing of FIR – compromise between parties

Patna HC5 Feb 2026CR. MISC./67927/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.67927 of 2025, decided 05-02-2026 by Justice Sourendra Pandey: FIR Soh Sarai P.S. Case No. 144 of 2025 (31.05.2025), Nalanda, under Sections 303(2), 126(2), 115(2), 109, 308(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) BNS quashed on compromise between petitioners Vicky Kumar @ Vivek Kumar, Vishal Kumar and Saurabh Kumar and informant Rohit Kumar; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 para 61 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 para 29.4 relied on; quashing on settlement, abuse of process; application allowed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the F.I.R. bearing Soh Sarai P.S. Case No. 144 of 2025; the criminal miscellaneous application stands allowed. ¶¶34

Vicky Kumar @ Vivek Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the F.I.R. bearing Soh Sarai P.S. Case No. 144 of 2025; the criminal miscellaneous application stands allowed.

¶¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the F.I.R. and resulting proceedings of Soh Sarai P.S. Case No. 144 of 2025 should be quashed in the light of the compromise between the petitioners and the informant, despite the learned APP's objection that a serious offence was alleged against the petitioners.

¶¶15

Court's answer

The parties had genuinely compromised with the intervention of well-wishers (compromise petition on record as Annexure-P/2), and looking at the nature of the offences, they were acts committed by the petitioners against the informant and not against public policy.

¶¶20

Ratio / Principle

Following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (para 61) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 (para 29.4), continuation of the criminal proceedings between the parties would amount to abuse of the process of law, and the FIR bearing Soh Sarai P.S. Case No. 144 of 2025 was quashed.

¶¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR — compromise between parties — inherent power of the High Court (Patna High Court, Sourendra Pandey, J., 05-02-2026). The F.I.R. in Soh Sarai P.S. Case No. 144 of 2025 dated 31.05.2025, registered under Sections 303(2), 126(2), 115(2), 109, 308(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., was quashed. Counsel for the petitioners and opposite party no. 2 (the informant) jointly submitted that the parties had compromised with the intervention of well-wishers, that all sections except Section 109 B.N.S. were compoundable, and that the offences were entirely personal in nature. The court recorded that the parties had indeed compromised (compromise petition, Annexure-P/2) and that the acts were committed against the informant and not against public policy; the learned APP's objection that a serious offence precluded compromise was not accepted. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (para 61) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 (para 29.4), the court held that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law and quashed the FIR; the application was allowed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67927 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-144 Year-2025 Thana- SOHSARAI District- Nalanda

¶3

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

¶4

Vicky Kumar @ Vivek Kumar Son of Anil Mahto @ Anil Kumar Resident of village- Ashanagar, Ps- soh Sarai, Dist- Nalanda

¶5

Vishal Kumar son of Anil Mahto @ Anil Kumar Resident of villageAshanagar, Ps- soh Sarai, Dist- Nalanda

¶6

Saurabh Kumar Son of Satish Prasad Resident of village- Ashanagar, Ps- soh Sarai, Dist- Nalanda

¶7

... ... Petitioner/s

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Bihar

¶10

Rohit Kumar son of Kishori Prasad Resident of village- Kakhada, PsNoorsarai, Dist- Nalanda

¶11

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amitabh Rituraj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Md. Matloob Rab, APP For the Informant : Ms. Monika Singh, Advocate ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶14

2 05-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

The present application has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. dated being Soh Sarai P.S. Case No. 144 of 2025 dated 31.05.2025 registered under Sections 303(2), 126(2), 115(2), 109, 308(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.

¶16

At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as the O.P. No. 2 have jointly submitted that the parties have compromised with the intervention of well-wishers. It has been submitted that barring Section 109 of the B.N.S., rest all of the sections are

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67927 of 2025(2) dt.05-02-2026 2/5

¶18

compoundable and in view of the nature of offences, which are entirely personal and does not shakes with the public conscience, the continuation of proceedings would be utterly futile. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the respective parties that both the parties are not interested in pursuing the matter and as such the present application may be allowed and the proceedings arising out of Soh Sarai P.S. Case No. 144 of 2025 be quashed.

¶19

Learned APP for the State submits that there is a serious offence alleged against the petitioners and as such the question of compromise does not arise.

¶20

Upon considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and taking into account the compromise petition, which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-P/2, it would be evident that the parties have indeed compromised and looking at the nature of offences, it would appear that it was an act committed by the petitioners against the informant and not against public policy. It has lastly been submitted that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

¶21

Considering the settled principle of law as enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , paragraph -61

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67927 of 2025(2) dt.05-02-2026 3/5

¶23

of the same reads as under:

¶24

“ 61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing,

¶25

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67927 of 2025(2) dt.05-02-2026 4/5

¶26

particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

¶27

7. In case of Narinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of

¶28

Punjab and Anr reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, paragraph -29.4

¶29

of the same reads as under :

¶30

“ 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or

¶31

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67927 of 2025(2) dt.05-02-2026 5/5

¶32

arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.”

¶33

In view of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, the continuation of the criminal proceedings between the parties would amount to abuse of the process of law and as such the FIR bearing Soh Sarai P.S. Case No. 144 of 2025 is, hereby, quashed.

¶34

The application stands allowed.

¶35

(Sourendra Pandey, J)

¶36

aditya/-

¶37

Vicky Kumar @ Vivek Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vicky Kumar @ Vivek 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Nath Ray Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Alkama @ Md. Aalkama Vs The State of Bihar

Sunita Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar

Surendra Pandey Vs the State of Bihar

Uma Shankar Prasad Shani @ Uma Shankar Shani Vs the State of Bihar

Rajive Kumaraswami Vs The State of Bihar