Patna High Court
Dinesh Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 10 November, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36948 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-766 Year-2022 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - SHERGHATI
District- Gaya
======================================================
Dinesh Yadav, Son of Sacho Yadav R/O Vill- Chanpi, P.S.- Sherghati,
District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sunita Devi, wife of Dinesh Yadav, R/O Vill- Chanpi, P.S.- Sherghati,
District- Gaya, Present address- Vill- Pachmath, P.S.- Bankey Bazar,
District- Gaya (Bihar).
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Narsingh Tanti, APP
For O.P. No.2 : Ms. Nutan Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-11-2025
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner; learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
O.P. No.2.
2. The petitioner has preferred application under
Section 528 BNSS for quashing the order dated 21.12.2022
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sherghati in
Complaint Case no.766/2022, by which cognizance of the
offences has been taken under Sections 498(A) and 494 of the
Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner informs that there was misunderstanding between him
and his wife/opposite party no.2 on account of a domestic help,
who was engaged to take care of his ailing mother, leading to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36948 of 2025 dt.10-11-2025
matrimonial dispute between them. He further submitted that
petitioner is ready to keep opposite party no.2 with full dignity
and honour.
4. It has been informed on behalf of the opposite
party no.2 that without understanding the consequences, under
misguide and wrong advice, she has filed the complaint case
No.766/2022 after twenty years of marriage in which
cognizance of the offence under Section 498(A) and 494 of
Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner.
However, after realizing that her husband is innocent and he has
no relationship with the domestic help, she now wants to
withdraw the case.
5. Considering that the good sense has prevailed
between the parties, who are husband and wife and they happily
lived together for twenty years and it is admitted by opposite
party no.2 that the criminal case was filed by her against her
husband due to misunderstanding and wrong advice but now she
is willing to withdraw the same, I find that both the parties
should file a joint compromise petition before the concerned
District Court forthwith. Learned District Court shall consider
the case in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case
of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, reported in, (2003) 4 SCC
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36948 of 2025 dt.10-11-2025
675; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10
SCC 303; Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. Vs. Babita
Raghuvanshi & Ors., reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58 and
Yogendra Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653.
6. In case, the parties resolve their dispute amicably,
then the proceeding is required to be dropped in light of the law
laid down by the Apex Court in case of Naushey Ali vs. State of
U.P., reported in, (2025) 4 SCC 78, wherein, it has been
observed 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 settled and resolved."
7. The present application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 12.11.2025
Transmission Date 12.11.2025
