Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 719 (PAT)

Uttam Sengupta v. State Of Bihar

2007-04-10

MADHAVENDRA SARAN

body2007
Judgment Madhavendra Saran, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State. None appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 to argue the matter. 2. In this miscellaneous application there is prayer for quashing the order dated 23/ 26.3.1997 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in Rampur P.S. Case No. 80/95 by which cognizance under Sections 502(B), 504 and 505 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioners and one more other person. 3. It appears that opposite party no.2/ complainant Dr. Govind Prasad filed Complaint Case No. 122/95 against the present three petitioners and one other for offence punishable under Sections 502(B), 504 and 505 of the Indian Penal Code the occurrence of which had taken place on 14.2.1995. It appears that a copy of complaint petition was sent to Rampur Police Station under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of which the present case i.e. Rampur P.S. Case No. 80/95 dated 17.5.1995 was registered at the Police Station. It further appears that the police after investigation submitted final form in the shape of charge sheet under Sections 502(B), 504 and 505 of the Penal Code and accordingly cognizance was taken under the aforesaid sections of the Penal Code. Against the said order of cognizance, the petitioners have preferred the present application for quashing before this Court. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that opposite party no. 2/ complainant Dr. Govind Prasad had also filed Complaint Case no. 543/95 before the Court at Gaya and the same was disposed of in terms of compromise by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya on 5.11.2004. He then referred to Annexure-E annexed to the supplementary affidavit and submitted that the compromise petition which was filed in Complaint Case No. 543/95 it was mentioned therein that the matter between the petitioners and opposite party no.2 of Rampur P.S. Case No. 80/95 has also been settled and the compromise will cover Rampur P.S. Case No. 80/95. Learned counsel further contended that out of three sections under which cognizance has been taken only Sec. 505 of the Penal Code is not compoundable and other two sections are compoundable without permission of the Court. Learned counsel further contended that out of three sections under which cognizance has been taken only Sec. 505 of the Penal Code is not compoundable and other two sections are compoundable without permission of the Court. Learned counsel pointed out that after the compromise both the paries are living in harmony and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending back the matter to the Court below for continuation. In this connection he placed reliance on a decision reported in AIR 2003 S.C. 1386 : 2003 (2) PCCR 25 (SC) given in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. The State of Haryana and Anr. and submitted that it has been observed by the Apex Court "It is, thus, clear that Madhu Limayes case does not lay down any general proposition limiting power of quashing the criminal proceedings or F.I.R. or complaint as vested in Sec. 482 of the Code or extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are, therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of F.I.R. becomes necessary, Sec.320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power." 5. Now the position is that present petitioners are being prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 502(B), 504 and 505 of the Penal Code. Sections 502 and 504 of the Penal Code are compoundable. Only Section 505 is not compoundable. It appears from Annexure-E to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners that both the parties in Complaint Case No. 543/1995 filed a joint compromise petition in which they also mentioned that the present compromise will also cover Rampur P.S. Case No. 80/95 in which Dr. Govind Prasad is the informant. 6. As both the parties have resolved the dispute and living in harmony I feel that no useful purpose would be served by allowing the present case to continue. 7. In the result, this application is allowed and the order impugned dated 23/26.3.1997 is hereby quashed.