Petitioners challenging refusal of compensation under CrPC Sec. 250 after acquittal; High Court held power is discretionary and no vested right exists merely on acquittal.
Writ petition dismissed; application for compensation refused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.653 of 2012
====================================================== 1. Kamlee Mahto, Late Masudan Mahto Village-Manikpur,Tola Simana,Naudhagar,Ps-Manikpur(Suryagarha) Distt.Lakhisarai. 2. Udit Kishore Singh, Son of Kamlee Mahto Village-Manikpur,Tola Simana,Naudhagar,Ps-Manikpur(Suryagarha) Distt.Lakhisarai. 3. Arbind Mahto Kamlee Mahto Village-Manikpur,Tola Simana,Naudhagar,Ps-Manikpur(Suryagarha) Distt.Lakhisarai. 4. Lalit Mahto, Son of Kamlee Mahto Village-Manikpur,Tola Simana,Naudhagar,Ps-Manikpur(Suryagarha) Distt.Lakhisarai. 5. Ajit Mahto, Son of Laste Ayodhya Mahto, 6. Sanjiv Mahto@ Bhomu Mahto, son of Ajit Mahto VillageManikpur,Tola Simana,Naudhagar,Ps-Manikpur(Suryagarha) Distt.Lakhisarai. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The D.G.P.Bihar,Patna. 2. Uma Devi Widow Of Late Mahendra Mahto Village-Manikpur Tola,Simana,Naudhnagar Ps-Manikpur(Suryagarha) Distt-Lakhisarai. 3. Nankhi Devi Widow Of Late Khopari Matho Village-Manikpur Tola,Simana,Naudhnagar Ps-Manikpur(Suryagarha) Distt-Lakhisarai. 4. Prakash Mahto, Son of Late Bajrangi Mahto Village-Manikpur Tola,Simana,Naudhnagar Ps-Manikpur(Suryagarha) Distt-Lakhisarai. 5. Ramanand Mahto, Son of Late Ragho Mahto Village-Manikpur Tola,Simana,Naudhnagar Ps-Manikpur(Suryagarha) Distt-Lakhisarai. 6. Bishundeo Mahto, son of Late Ragho Mahto Village-Manikpur Tola,Simana,Naudhnagar Ps-Manikpur(Suryagarha) Distt-Lakhisarai. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Senior Advocate Mr. Pramod Kumar and Ritesh Kumar, Advocates For the Respondents : Mrs. Nutan Sahay, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.653 of 2012 (2) dt.18-07-2012
2
Magistrate, Lakhisarai, Munger by his judgment dated 26.06.2007 acquitted them in the criminal case. The petitioners, thereafter filed an application in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Lakhisarai and prayed that they should be awarded compensation in terms of Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned S.D.J.M., Lakhisarai by his order dated 31.03.2012 passed in Miscellaneous Case No.01 of 2009 refused to allow the prayer of the petitioners on the ground that the acquittal in criminal case was recorded giving the petitioners benefit of doubt. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners in which a prayer has been made that the aforesaid order dated 31.03.2012 passed in Miscellaneous Case No.01 of 2009 by the learned S.D.J.M., Lakhisarai be quashed and the petitioners be granted compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- each for their illegal prosecution in a criminal case.
In my view, the prayer cannot be allowed. The object of Section 250 Cr.P.C. is not to punish the complainant, but, by a summary order, to award some compensation to the person against whom, without any reasonable ground, the accusation is made leaving it to him to obtain further redress against the complainant, if he seeks for it, by a regular suit or a criminal prosecution. Section 250(1) clearly vests the Magistrate with a discretionary
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.653 of 2012 (2) dt.18-07-2012
3
power to award compensation under this Section where he acquits or discharges the accused and is further of the opinion that there was no reasonable ground for making the accusation against them or any of them. Mere acquittal of the accused would not be, if so facto, sufficient to attract the provision of Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Since the power under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure is discretionary power vested in court the accused who has been acquitted in a criminal case has no vested right to seek compensation under this Section.
I find no merit in this application and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)
B.Kr./-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an accused person acquitted in a criminal case has a vested right to claim compensation under Section 250 CrPC.
Whether the discretion vested in the Magistrate under Section 250 CrPC allows compensation grant merely on the ground of acquittal.
Whether the order refusing compensation under Section 250 CrPC should be quashed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kamlee Mahto, Udit Kishore Singh, Arbind Mahto, Lalit Mahto, Ajit Mahto, Sanjiv Mahto
State Of Bihar
Uma Devi
Nankhi Devi
Prakash Mahto
Ramanand Mahto
Ashwani Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
