Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1026 (JHR)

Satyendra Giri v. State of Jharkhand

2014-10-09

P.P.BHATT

body2014
JUDGMENT At the out set learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that this petition was drafted without incorporating the prayer for setting aside the order dated 28.1.2005 passed by the learned C.J.M. Chatra which is annexed as annexure-5 to this petition and therefore, he seeks permission to incorporate the prayer for setting the order dated 28.1.2005 in the prayer clause. 2. Permission, as sought for, is allowed. 3. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner shall carry out necessary amendment in the petition during course of the day by Red Ink. 4. The present application is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order of the entire criminal proceeding of U.C Case No. 355 of 1996 and T.R. No. 89 of 2005 and S.T. No. 99 of 2006 registered under sections 33,41,42 of the Indian Forest Act and under sections120-B/379/411/412 413/414 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as the entire proceeding was closed by way of compromise/compounded in Lok Adalat in view of the agreement arrived at between the parties and accordingly, order was passed by the Lok Adalat directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1600/-and same was received by the opposite party no.2. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that opposite party no.2 communicated about the settlement arrived at between the parties in the Lok Adalat vide different letters to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Chatra without proper consideration of the matter once again reopened the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of the well settled principle of law, a person cannot be tried again for the same offence. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to and relied upon some of orders annexed to this petition wherein in similar set of facts, a Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to quash the order passed by the learned court below for reopening of the case which was settled in the Lok Adalat. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to and relied upon some of orders annexed to this petition wherein in similar set of facts, a Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to quash the order passed by the learned court below for reopening of the case which was settled in the Lok Adalat. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order passed in Cr.M.P. No. 975 of 2005 on 18.8.2005 which was modified vide order dated 1.9.2005 and also in another order passed in Cr.M.P. No. 179 of 2006 on 7.1.2010 which was also modified vide order dated 23.2.2010 wherein Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to quash the order of taking cognizance passed by the learned court below. 7. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposed the application and submitted that the learned court below reopened the matter mainly on the ground that some of the offences alleged to have been made against the petitioner were not compoundable and the order passed by the learned court below is in accordance with law and therefore, this Cr.M.P filed by the petitioner may be rejected. However, he has not disputed the fact regarding the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 975 of 2005 and Cr.M.P. No. 179 of 2006 wherein in similar situation such orders were quashed by this Court. 8. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and having regarding to the facts and circumstances of the present case it appears that the matter was referred to Lok Adalat and thereafter settlement has been arrived at between the parties and in view of the settlement, penalty of Rs. 1600/-was imposed upon the petitioner which was paid by the petitioner and the said amount of penalty was accepted by the Official of the Forest Department and intimation to this effect was also sent to the learned court below by the petitioner as well as the Official of the Forest Department. However, learned court below without proper consideration of the facts passed an order and reopened the matter mainly on the ground that some of the offences alleged to have been made against the petitioners were not compoundable. However, learned court below without proper consideration of the facts passed an order and reopened the matter mainly on the ground that some of the offences alleged to have been made against the petitioners were not compoundable. It appears that orders passed by this court annexed to this petition were not brought to the notice of the learned court below and therefore, learned court below without considering and appreciating the decision given by this court in Cr.M.P. No. 975 of 2005 and Cr.M.P. No. 179 of 2006 has passed the order and reopened the matter. In view of the order passed in above referred Cr.M.Ps, the present petition also deserves to be allowed and order dated 28.1.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in U.C Case No. 355 of 1996 and T.R. No. 89 of 2005 and S.T. No. 99 of 2006 is hereby quashed with respect to the present petitioner.