IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25432 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2024 Thana- MAHILA P.S District- West Champaran ======================================================

Sandeep Kumar Yadav S/O Yogendra Yadav R/O Village- Deora, P.S-

Babubarhi, Dis.- Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Priya Kumari D/O Birendra Prasad Singh R/O Bankerva. P.S- Parasa, Distt.-

Saran. Also at Plus 2 Rajkiya Anusuchit Janjati Awasiya Balika Ucch Vidayalaya, Ghamora, P.S- Sahodar, Distt.-West Champaran.

... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Anish Kumar, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 22-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, O.P. No. 2 and the learned APP for the State.

2. This is an application for quashing the cognizance order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, West Champaran, Bettiah in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 30 of 2024 dated 01.07.2024 bearing G.R. No. 2809 of 2024, whereby cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 313, 379 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken against the petitioner pending in the court learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 were in love and the petitioner had accepted to marry the informant but on being influenced by other persons, the informant/O.P. No. 2 lodged the present FIR. It has been submitted that the police mechanically submitted charge- sheet and even the learned trial court took cognizance for the offences under Sections 376, 420, 313, 379 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by order dated 14.11.2024, which has been impugned through the present application.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant and the petitioner have settled their dispute and no grievance is left against each other and both the side have mutually filed a compromise deed on 04.02.2025 before the learned trial court which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-P-3. Learned counsel referring to the said compromise petition has pointed out towards paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 which are hereunder:

“5. Whereas efforts and attempts were made by the friends and elders as well as the respectable people of the society thereby clarifying all the bonafide mistakes, misunderstandings between the parties. The Second Party has thus agreed to withdra the FIR made against the First Party and the parties shall make statements before the court or police authorities in this respect as and when required.

6. Whereas Second Party undertakes to withdraw the FIR Bettiah Mahila P.S. case no. 30/2024.

7. Whereas All the disputes between the parties stands finally resolved and there is no ill will or complaint against each other in any manner.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, in fact, in the same compromise petition in paragraph-10 it was also decided that any complaint by the parties against each other shall stand withdrawn, cancelled or revoked finally after signing of the mutual compromise deed.

6. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 does not dispute the factum of compromise entered between the parties and, in fact, has gone on to add that the O.P. No. 2 was even examined as P.W. 1 in the trial, wherein she has categorically stated that no physical relationship between the petitioner and the informant had been established and, in fact, she wanted to marry with the petitioner however the parents of the petitioner were not ready for the same. The O.P. No. 2 was declared hostile at the r