Monday, 18, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Vinay Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2026 Latest Caselaw 313 Patna

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 313 Patna
Judgement Date : 5 February, 2026

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court

Vinay Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 5 February, 2026

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82572 of 2025
      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2009 Thana- RAMKRISHNANAGAR District- Patna
     ======================================================
     Vinay Kumar S/O Saryug Mahto R/O Village- Madhopur, P.S.- Silao, Dist.-
     Nalanda

                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                          Versus
1.   The State of Bihar Patna
2.   Vashudeo Prasad S/O Late Ranju Mahto R/O Vill.- Delwan New Bypass,
     P.S.- Ram Krishnanagar, Dist.- Patna

                                            ... ... Opposite Party/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Sanjay Prasad, Adv.
     For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv.
     For the State            :      Mr.Manoj Kumar, APP
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
     ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 05-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 and learned A.P.P.

for the State.

2. The petitioner has made the following prayer in this

application :-

"That this is an application for quashing

of the order dated 14.05.2010 passed by

the court of learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Patna in Ramkrishna Nagar

P. S. Case No. 79/2009 whereby and

whereunder cognizance has been taken u/s

419, 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 of the

I.P.C. against the petitioner and others."

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82572 of 2025 dt.05-02-2026

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

prosecution case was to the effect that the two named accused

persons namely Abhikant Verma @ Munna and Sunil Paswan

have contacted the informant for installation of mobile tower. It

has further been alleged that Rs. 70,000/- was paid. However,

the two persons were subsequently found that they were not

working in the office of the said company and it was realized

that the accused persons had swindled several persons in such

manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is the grand son of the informant. It has further been

submitted that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. and as

such he was not aware of the development made in the case. It

has further been submitted that named accused persons and the

informant had compromised the matter way back on 05.09.2009

and the said petition was filed before the learned trial court. It

has further been submitted that despite such compromise on

record, learned trial court has gone to take cognizance against

the accused persons vide order dated 14.05.2010. Learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was

not initially named accused in the F.I.R., he was not aware of

such development and only when the process under Section 82

of the Cr.P.C. was issued, he came to know about the pendency Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82572 of 2025 dt.05-02-2026

of the said case and therefore, has preferred this application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

no concern with the aforesaid incident and it is an admitted case,

the money was handed over to the two named accused persons.

As per the compromise, the said amount has already been

returned. It has further been submitted that in view of such

compromise and the offence being very personal in nature and

the petitioner being not directly involved, the continuation of

such proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of law.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.

No. 2 has very fairly submitted that the parties have

compromised. The continuation of the proceeding especially

against the petitioner would not serve the purpose and it would

be a trial in futility. It has further been submitted that the

quashing application of the two named accused persons is

pending before this Hon'ble Court however it is not disputed

that the petitioner was not party to the said compromise.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the present

application stating that the petitioner has challenged the order

taking cognizance which was passed way back in the year 2010

and hence, it should not be entertained.

6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82572 of 2025 dt.05-02-2026

and taking into account the fact that the submission made

therein specially for the fact that the offence alleged therein,

though not been compoundable, are personal in nature and in

view of the compromise the same can be considered. In view of

the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Narinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Anr

reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has given the guidelines and laid down the principles by

which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate

treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its

power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., while accepting the

settlement and quashing the proceedings or in the alternative

refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with

the criminal proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further

elaborated that when the parties have reached the settlement and

on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceeding is

filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(I) ends of justice,

(II) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 29.4

observed as under:

"29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82572 of 2025 dt.05-02-2026

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

8. Accordingly, the order dated 14.05.2010 as well as

the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Ramkrishna Nagar

P. S. Case No. 79/2009, is, hereby, quashed as against the

petitioner.

9. The application stands allowed.

(Sourendra Pandey, J) Gautam/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          10.02.2026
Transmission Date       10.02.2026
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter