The High Court allowed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 07.04.2014 refusing permission to compound an IPC 420 offence, finding that a compromise existed between the parties.
Order dated 07.04.2014 quashed; Petitioner directed to file fresh petition for permission to compound offence.
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.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19447 of 2014 dt.03-07-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.19447 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -187 Year- 2008 Thana -BUXAR District- BUXAR
===========================================================
Shiv Sagar Upadhyay Son of Paras Nath Upadhyay Resident of villageBandhuchak, Police Station- Dubhar, District- Balia (U.P.) Posted as Assistant Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division, District- Buxar, at Present Estimating Officer, Flood Control Circle, Buxar
.... .... Petitioner
.... .... Opposite Party
=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Om Prakash Pandey Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Atul Chandra, APP
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 03-07-2017
This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
whereunder the petitioner has prayed to quash the order dated 07.04.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar in G. R. No. 1109 of 2008 arising out of Buxar P.S. Case No. 187 of 2008.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19447 of 2014 dt.03-07-2017
the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet and cognizance of offence was taken against the petitioner. The matter between the parties has been compromised. In this regard, the petitioner had filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 43940 of 2013 as the matter was already compromised for quashing the order dated 06.08.2013 whereunder cognizance was taken. The said criminal miscellaneous application was disposed of and the court below was directed to pass appropriate order on the compromise petition as well as petition for permission to compound the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which was filed on 04.09.2008. The matter was again placed before the court blow, but the prayer to compound the case was refused on 07.04.2014. The court below refused to discharge the petitioner only for the reason that the informant could not appear before the court below. The learned counsel further submits that the compromise between the parties is not in dispute. The petitioner before this Court had filed a Complaint Case No. 1153(C) of 2009 against one Gopal Ji Rai, which after trial ended in conviction. The accused was convicted for the offence under Sections 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been sought to be prosecuted on the basis of the said documents,
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19447 of 2014 dt.03-07-2017
which has been challenged by this petitioner also. The informant of this case was not party to the case in which Gopal Ji Rai was convicted. The informant of this case had appeared before the court below at the time of hearing of the bail and had supported the factum of compromise. The copy of the bail order is Annexure 5/B of this application. So, in view of the compromise, the prosecution of this petitioner would amount to abuse of process of the Court and so, the order is fit to be quashed.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19447 of 2014 dt.03-07-2017
of the court, the prosecution of this petitioner would amount to
abuse of process of the Court.
(Sanjay Kumar, J)
ajaypd./-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAVDATE | NA |
| UploadingDate | 05.07.2017 |
| Transmission Date |
05.07.2017 |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order refusing permission to compound a compounding offence should be quashed in view of a valid compromise between parties.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shiv Sagar Upadhyay
The State of Bihar
Arun Kumar Singh
Sanjay Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
