Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 715 (PAT)

Bibhas Mukherjee v. State Of Bihar

1999-08-05

S.K.KATRIAR

body1999
Judgment SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR, J. 1. This application under the inherent powers of this Court has been preferred by the accused persons for quashing the entire criminal proceeding pending against the accused persons in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in case No. 114(C) of 1992, under Section 420 of the IPC, after accepting the compromise petition filed by the complainant before the trial Court in terms of Section 320, Cr PC, the two being dated 3.2.1994 and the last one on 19.2.1994. The same are marked Annexures 2, 3 and 4, respectively. 2. The complainant had filed a complaint petition dated 27.2.1992 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, alleging therein that M/s. Lipton India Limited and some of its functionaries who have been made accused therein, had refused to provide him with certain forms under the Bihar Finance Act, as a result of which he had to deposit a sum of Rs. 12,973.49p. as tax to the Sales Tax authorities. Cognizance was taken of the alleged offence under Section 420, IPC and the accused persons were summoned to stand their trial. Soon thereafter, the parties had compromised the issues outside the Court, and the complainant had filed an application dated 19.2,1994 under Section 320 of the Code, before the trial Court to the effect that the complaint case may be disposed of in terms of the compromise petition. (A copy of the compromise petition is marked Annexure 4, hereof.) On the same day, i.e. 19.2.1994, the trial Court had examined the complainant on the question of compromise and he stated unequivocally that the matter has been compromised outside the Court and no grievance survives. A copy of his deposition is marked Annexure 5 to the quashing petition. The trial Court by his order dated 2.3.1994 refused to dispose of the complaint case in terms of the compromise petition because all the accused persons had not appeared in the case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has erred in passing the order dated 2.3.1994. In view of the applications under Section 320 Of the Code (vide Annexures 2, 3 and 4), filed by the complainant, read with the complainants deposition vide Annexure 5, the trial Court should have disposed of the complaint case in terms of the compromise petition. 4. In view of the applications under Section 320 Of the Code (vide Annexures 2, 3 and 4), filed by the complainant, read with the complainants deposition vide Annexure 5, the trial Court should have disposed of the complaint case in terms of the compromise petition. 4. No one appears on behalf of the complainant to oppose the application. I have applied my mind to the facts and circumstances of this case. It is manifest from a plain reading of the application under Section 320 of the Code, that the alleged offence is punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, and can be compounded with the permission of the Court. The complainant has stated clearly in his first application dated 3.2.1994 (Annexure 2) that he has, in fact, received a total sum of Rs. 21,000/- in full and final settlement of his claims. He has also stated in his deposition on oath (Annexure 5), before the trial Court that in his application under Section 320, IPC he has compounded the issues without any duress and in complete satisfaction of his claim. In such circumstances, I am convinced that the issues between the parties have been resolved, and nothing survives to be adjudicated in the complaint case. I have, therefore, no hesitation in according permission to compound the offence. 5. In the result, this quashing petition is allowed and the entire proceeding against the petitioners, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in case No. 114(C) of 1992, is hereby quashed.