Dismissed¶22

Munni Prasad @ Munni Prasad Chandrawanshi @ Muni Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC6 Jul 2026CR. REV./668/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision No.668 of 2025, Patna High Court, Arun Kumar Jha, J., dated 06-07-2026; listed for hearing on Limitation Petition I.A. No. 01 of 2026; challenge to compromise order in Maintenance Case No. 78 of 2019, Family Court, Rohtas (maintenance case disposed of as settled); allegation of forged signature on compromise petition; disputed question of fact not examinable in revision; fraud vitiates everything; remedy lies before the court that passed the compromise order; petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the petition granted; petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to have recourse of law in appropriate proceeding before appropriate forum. ¶22

Munni Prasad @ Munni Prasad Chandrawanshi @ Muni Prasad Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to withdraw the petition granted; petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to have recourse of law in appropriate proceeding before appropriate forum.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether a Family Court order disposing of a maintenance case as settled on a compromise petition can be challenged in criminal revision on the ground that the petitioner's signature on the compromise petition was forged.

¶19

Court's answer

A revisional court cannot at the first instance enter into disputed questions of fact; therefore the allegation that the compromise petition bore the petitioner's forged signature cannot be examined in criminal revision.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Since fraud vitiates everything, if the petitioner makes out a case that the compromise is based on his forged signature, the court which passed the compromise order could look into the matter; hence he must take up the issue in the same court and cannot challenge the compromise order in criminal revision.

¶19

Key takeaways

Permission to withdraw was accorded and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to have recourse of law in appropriate proceeding before the appropriate forum.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Patna (Arun Kumar Jha, J.), Criminal Revision No.668 of 2025, decided 06-07-2026. The petitioner challenged a compromise order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtas in Maintenance Case No. 78 of 2019, whereby the maintenance case was disposed of as settled on a joint compromise petition for withdrawal, alleging that his signature on the compromise petition was forged. Held: a revisional court cannot, at first instance, go into disputed questions of fact; as fraud vitiates everything, if the petitioner makes out a case that the compromise rests on his forged signature, the court which passed the compromise order could look into the matter, so the issue must be taken up in the same court and the compromise order cannot be challenged in criminal revision. Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to have recourse of law before the appropriate forum.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.668 of 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Munni Prasad @ Munni Prasad Chandrawanshi @ Muni Prasad S/o- Ram Vrat Singh @ Brat Ram R/o- Village- SAriawan Ps- Nokha Dist- Rohtas A/PPower House, Electricity Dept. Samhuta Banzari Ps- Banzari Dist- Rohtas

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar

¶7

Anita Devi W/o- Munni Prasad Chandrawanshi, D/o- Bhikhar Singh Village- Pandeypur Po- Nawadih Ps- Indrapuri Dist- Rohtas

¶8

... ... Respondent/s

¶9

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

¶10

Appearance :

¶11

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate

¶12

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

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶14

5 06-07-2026

¶15

Though the matter has been listed for hearing on Limitation Petition, i.e., I.A. No. 01 of 2026. But from perusal of record, I find that the petitioner has challenged a compromise order passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtas in Maintenance Case No. 78 of 2019, wherein it has been mentioned that both sides have filed compromise petition for withdrawal of the case under the terms of compromise. Accordingly, the maintenance case was disposed of as settled.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submits that the signature of the petitioner was forged on the compromise petition but this contention is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2 after receipt of notice. He submits that the learned counsels for the parties identified the

¶17

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.668 of 2025(5) dt.06-07-2026 2/2

¶18

signatures of their respective parties. Therefore, there is no question of signature of the petitioner being forged on the compromise petition.

¶19

This Court, at first instance, cannot go into the disputed question of facts in revision. Law is settled that fraud vitiates everything and if the petitioner could make out a case that compromise is based on forged signature of the petitioner, the court which passed the order on the basis of compromise could look into the matter. Hence, the petitioner could take up the issue in the same court and cannot challenge the compromise order in criminal revision.

¶20

Faced with the situation, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to have recourse of law in appropriate proceeding before appropriate forum.

¶21

Permission is accorded.

¶22

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.

¶23

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

¶24

DKS/-

¶25

U T

Munni Prasad @ Munni Prasad Chandrawanshi @ Muni Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munni Prasad @ Munni Prasad Chandrawanshi @ Muni Prasad 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Upendra Kumar Sharma @ Narendra Sharma Vs The State of Bihar

Sunil Singh Vs The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna

Sandhya Kumari Vs The State of Bihar through the Additional Secretary, Home Department, Bihar, Patna

Guddu Sharma Vs The State of Bihar

Rohit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rajnish Kumar @ Golu Kumar @ Golu @ Chhotu Vs The State of Bihar