Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21814 of 2013 (3) dt.02-07-2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.21814 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Md. Mehboob Alam Son Of Late Mohammed Noor Resident Of And / Or Carrying On Business At Noor Bidi Office, Churipatti, Police Station And District Kishanganj, Bihar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Washim Raja Khan Son Of Late Ali Hasan Khan Residing At Panibag, Ward No. 3, Police Station - Kishanganj, District - Kishanganj .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K.Agrawal, Sr. Adv. M/s Udai Jha and Kumar Manish, Adv. For Opposite Party No.2. Mr. Amit Prakash, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER
3 02-07-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
In this case petitioner is making a prayer for quashing the order dated 20th March 2013 by which the court below has refused to entertain the compromise petition on the ground that Section 257 Cr.P.C, is applicable to the summons cases whereas Section 249 Cr. P.C applies in a situation when the complainant remains absent, but in a situation when the complainant is appearing in the proceeding, the question of dropping the proceeding taking recourse to Section 249 Cr.P.C. does not arise.
Instead of going to the merit of the case, it appears that an FIR was lodged by one Wasim Raja Khan for the offences Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21814 of 2013 (3) dt.02-07-2013 u/s 420, 406, 307 IPC arising from Kishanganj P.S.Case No. 90 of 2006 against Mahboob Alam and others which is arising from Com. Case No. 1096 of 2004 which was sent by the C.J.M., Kishanganj u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C for instituting an FIR.
In the complaint petition it has been alleged that the accused persons approached and requested to give Rs.7,00,000/- as debt for urgent need concerning Excise matter and they were insisting for money to save their prestige. Ultimately Rs.4,00,000/- was given with the promise to return the same. After some time when the complainant approached, it was denied so much so that the complainant also hurled threat to his life. The complaint case was filed and the court below took cognizance u/s 323, 406, 504 IPC vide order dated 7th May 2007.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have settled the dispute outside the court and they are not interested to proceed with the matter. Attention has been drawn to order dated 20th January 2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Purnea in ABA No. 599 of 2012 where the Sessions Judge has recorded that a compromise petition to this effect has been filed along with anticipatory bail petition. The complainant also appeared before the court and admitted the factum of compromise and on that strength the court has g ranted anticipatory bail. A Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21814 of 2013 (3) dt.02-07-2013 compromise petition filed in the court below vide Annexure-4 attached to this petition where the parties have shown their desire that they no longer want to contest this case as they have settled the dispute outside the court. This stand has been supported by the counsel for the opposite party.
As it is a dispute between the two individuals, it is not crime against society and no way effect the public in general, it will be unnecessary prolongation of the matter not serving the interest of any party. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar situation in the case reported in 2012 (2) PLJR 133 (Om Prakash Sharma v. The State of Bihar & ors.) 2013(2) PLJR 312 (SC) (Jitendra Raghuvanshi & ors. V. Babita Raghvanshi & another.) (2012)10 SCC Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another).
has held that where the offence is not against the society or the public, dispute primarily confined to individual, in case of settlement of dispute even of non-compoundable offences outside the Court, it would in the ends of justice to quash the proceeding as the continuation of criminal proceeding will be an abuse of the process of the court.Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21814 of 2013 (3) dt.02-07-2013
In such view of the matter, the order of cognizance dated 7th May 2012 is quashed and this petition is allowed.
Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)