Allowed

Ranjan Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC18 Mar 2024CR. MISC./1352/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of a cognizance order in a complaint case alleging snatching of cash and ornaments and abduction. Following an out-of-court compromise between the parties and relying on Gian Singh, the High Court quashed the cognizance order as continuation would abuse the court's process.

What did the court decide?

Cognizance order dated 1.9.2022 quashed with respect to the petitioners; application allowed.

Ranjan Prasad Singh Vs The State of Bihar — Quashing and FIR | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1352 of 2023

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-277 Year-2022 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- East Champaran

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Ranjan Prasad Singh Son Of Ganesh Prasad Singh R/O Mohalla- Chhautani Bazar, (WARD No.18), P.S.- Chhatauni, District- East Champaran At Motihari

¶5

Ganesh Prasad Singh Son Of Late Brahmdev Singh R/O Mohalla- Chhautani Bazar, (WARD No.18), P.S.- Chhatauni, District- East Champaran At Motihari

¶6

Kunal Kumar Son Of Late Arun Rai R/O Mohalla- Chhautani Bazar, (WARD No.18), P.S.- Chhatauni, District- East Champaran At Motihari

¶7

Alok Kumar Singh @ Alok Kumar Son Of Dhrup Rai R/O MohallaChhautani Bazar, (WARD No.18), P.S.- Chhatauni, District- East Champaran At Motihari

¶8

Shobha Devi Wife Of Ganesh Prasad Singh R/O Mohalla- Chhautani Bazar, (WARD No.18), P.S.- Chhatauni, District- East Champaran At Motihari

¶9

... ... Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State Of Bihar

¶12

Rakesh Kumar Son Of Rajeshwar Prasad Singh R/O Village- Mathiya Dih, (WARD No.17), P.S.- Chhatauni, District- East Champaran At Motihari

¶13

... ... Opposite Parties

¶14

======================================================

¶15

Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr.Rakesh Kumar No.1, Advocate For the State : Mr.Tarun Prasad Mandal, Addl Public Prosecutor for opposite party no.2 Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate ======================================================

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶17

5 18-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the State and opposite party no.2.

¶18

This application has been filed for quashing order dated 1.9.2022, passed in Complaint Case No. 277 of 2020 by which the Court below has taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioners under sections 323, 341, 504, 379, 420, 363/34 of the IPC.

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1352 of 2023(5) dt.18-03-2024 2/3

¶20

As per the prosecution case, all the accused persons including these petitioners, named in the complaint, came to the house of the complainant/ opposite party no.2 and on the point of arms, they snatched cash Rs. 5 lacs and ornaments and also abducted son of the complainant.

¶21

Daughter of petitioner no.2 was married with opposite party no.2 in 2002. It is jointly prayed by the parties that though the offences for which cognizance has been taken are not compoundable, however, good sense has prevailed and dispute has amicably been settled between the parties. In this regard, they have also filed a compromise petition dated 17.5.2023 in the court below. They submit that considering the private and trivial nature of dispute and compromise between the parties, continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. Reliance has been placed on case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another, reported in (2012)10 SCC 303. They submit that even in the case of non- compoundable offences, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court can quash the proceeding in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶22

Considering the aforesaid case law and the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, the continuance of

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1352 of 2023(5) dt.18-03-2024 3/3

¶24

criminal proceeding after compromise between the parties would amount to an abuse of the process of the court, hence the impugned cognizance order dated 1.9.2022, with respect to these petitioners, stands quashed and this application is allowed accordingly.

¶25

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

¶26

Shashi

¶27

U T

Ranjan Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjan Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mintu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Abhishek Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rustam Azad @ Rustam Z. Azad Vs the State of Bihar

Bhupendra Narayan Sinha Vs the State of Bihar

Subhash Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Uruj Aslam @ Md. Orooj Aslam Vs The State of Bihar