Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1376 (PAT)

Gita Rani Jaiswal v. State Of Bihar

2007-08-20

SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA

body2007
Judgment 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order dated 24.11.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Katihar in G.R. No. 1294 of 2005 Tr. No. 1668 of 2006 as contained in Annexure-3 which was a so-called compromise was never made by the petitioner rather in her place one imposture was set up and compromise was effected through her. In that case neither her counsel nor she appeared. The petitioner prays that the compromise made before the Legal Services Authority, Katihar in connection with G.R. No. 1294 of 2005 be quashed. 2. The petitioner Gita Rani Jaiswal has submitted a written report before the District Magistrate against respondent nos. 2 to 4, namely, Brahmanand Jaiswal, Risi Raj Jaiswal and Ritesh Raj Jaiswal @ Ritesh Kumar @ Gullu in which she alleged that those accused persons have committed some overt acts. Accordingly the case was registered vide Barari (Semapur) P.S. Case No. 86 of 2005 dated 20.8.2005 for the offence under Sections 452, 341, 323, 354, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against three accused persons under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance was taken and the case was transferred to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate and the case was fixed for framing of charge. On 23.11.2006 the petitioner alongwith her learned counsel Smt. Nirmala -Kumari went before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate but the petitioner could not give evidence and she was informed that the next date could be communicated to her after 2 P.M. When she went to make inquiry then she was told by the Bench Clerk of the Court that date would be given later. On 25.11.2006 the petitioner alongwith her counsel went to the Court for making inquiry then she was told that the case has been compromised by the Mobile Lok Adalat on 24.11.2006 itself. The petitioner was taken aback from the decision because no compromise was made with her. If any compromise was made then she suspected that imposter might have been set up and compromise effected by impersonation cannot be allowed to take into effect. 3. If a compromise has been effected by Lok Adalat it has to be respected by one and all. The word compromise should be understood as compromise between the real parties and on real issues. 3. If a compromise has been effected by Lok Adalat it has to be respected by one and all. The word compromise should be understood as compromise between the real parties and on real issues. No compromise can be effected by one real party on one side and imposture on another side. If that is allowed to happen then it will mean end of justice delivery system. If any imposture is allowed to intrude in the proceeding of the Court then courts cannot work. 4. After giving observation as above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an inquiry be made through the Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority, Katihar as to whether the compromise effected between the alleged party was genuine or not. 5. The compromise of Lok Adalat and before the court concern is accordingly set aside and the Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority is directed to make an inquiry as to whether the compromise between the parties in G.R. No. 1294 of 2005 Tr. No. 1668 of 2006 was genuine or not. 6. This writ application is accordingly disposed of with the direction made above.