Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 229 (PAT)

Gurinder Pal Singh v. State of Bihar

2012-02-07

VIKASH JAIN

body2012
ORDER The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.06.2010 passed in Complaint Case No. 113/2010 corresponding to Trial No. 1894/2010 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Raxaul at Motihari, taking cognizance of offences alleged under Sections 406, 419, 504 and 34 I.P.C. 2. According to the complaint, the matter relates to business transaction involving supply of grain in which the complainant is aggrieved for non-payment of the price thereof. 3. It is the common stand of the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 that the parties have since arrived at an amicable settlement, in view of which the opposite party is no longer interested in the prosecution case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to the provisions of Section 320 I.P.C. to submit that the offences under Sections 419 and 504 I.P.C. are compoundable straightaway by the person cheated or insulted as the case may be. As regards Section 406 I.P.C., the offence is compoundable by the owner of the property in respect of which the breach of trust has been committed, with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are wide and are fit to be exercised in a case of the present type where in view of the compromise and amicable settlement between the parties, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing the prosecution. 6. In support of his submission, he relies on a decision of the Apex Court reported in 2012 (1) P.L.J.R. 133 (Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. Vs. Radhika & Anr.) explaining the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis the provisions of compounding of offences. It has been held that merely because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 I.P.C. by itself is no reason for the High Court to refuse the exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Considering the nature of allegations against the petitioner which merely relate to non-payment of price of goods supplied being essentially a business transaction of a commercial nature, and also considering the fact that the parties have already now arrived at an amicable settlement, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution proceedings to continue. 8. 8. In the interest of justice, therefore, the impugned order of cognizance dated 10.06.2010 passed in Complaint Case No. 113/2010 corresponding to Trial No. 1894/2010, is hereby quashed.