Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.14219 of 2012 ====================================================== Aditya Kumar, S/o Late Jagdish Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Aga Hussain Chauraha, near Choti Masjid, P.S.- Begumpur, P.S. District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Bechan Mahaseth, S/o Late Ramchandra Mahaseth, resident of Village- Deodha, P.S. -Deodha, District- Madhubani. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anish Akhtar, Advocate For Opposite Party No.1 : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, APP For Opposite Party No.2: Mr. Ramjee Sharma, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 3 10-05-2012 Heard Mr. Anish Akhtar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, learned APP appearing for the State and Mr. Ramjee Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposite party no.2. This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) has been filed for quashing the order 09.11.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani in Complaint Case No.596-C of 2007, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has been pleased to take cognizance of the offences punishable under [STATUTE] against the petitioner. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14219 of 2012 (3) dt.10-05-2012 2 The allegation as set out in the complaint petition charges the accused who are Officer Incharge of different police stations is of arresting the son of the complainant and assaulting him and when objected to by the complainant, he was threatened with consequences. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the allegation as set out in the complaint submits that all the offences for which cognizance has been taken are compoundable, except [STATUTE] . It is submitted that a plain reading of the complaint would manifest that there is no allegation constituting the offences punishable under the aforesaid sections. He further submits that apart from the said aspect, the accused having initially arrested the son of the complainant in the light of the complaint received, subsequently released him and thus the arrest, if any, was in discharge of the official duty. It is stated that the complainant having realized the position and by virtue of intervention of the well-wishers filed an application under section 257 of the Code on 07.09.2009 seeking permission to withdraw the complaint. The said application, however, was rejected by order dated 04.11.2009 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14219 of 2012 (3) dt.10-05-2012 3 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, inter alia, on the ground that the offences being warrant triable, an application under section 257 of the Code is not maintainable. The complainant has appeared through his counsel and reiterates the position emanating from the application filed under section 257 of the Code. By filing an affidavit the complainant opposite party no.2 has submitted that the matter having been resolved due to intervention of well-wishers, he does not propose to pursue the matter against any of the accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court since reported in 2012 (1) PLJR 133 (SC) (Shiji @ Pappu and others vs. Radhika and Another) submits that in the aforesaid circumstances, the continuation of the proceedings where the chance of ultimate conviction apparently appears to be negligible, would be an abuse of the process of the court and that in the interest of justice the proceedings be quashed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials on record including the petition filed under section 257 of the Code on behalf of complainant opposite party no.2 together with the affidavit filed on his Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14219 of 2012 (3) dt.10-05-2012 4 behalf before the court, it is more than clear that the complainant opposite party no.2 does not wish to pursue the matter. Although an allegation of offence punishable under [STATUTE] has been set out in the complaint but the recitals thereof do not strictly constitute an offence punishable under [STATUTE] . The judgment of the Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu & ors (supra) relied upon by learned counsel more particularly paragraph 13 thereof holds that though the court below while trying an accused may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under section 320 of the Code but the High Court in exercise of powers vested under section 482 of the Code is not precluded to exercise the same considering the facts and circumstances governing the case under consideration. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon consideration of the materials on record this Court is satisfied that the parties having resolved to end the dispute and the complainant expressing clear intentions of not Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14219 of 2012 (3) dt.10-05-2012 5 pursuing the matter any further, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings. Although this application has been filed on behalf of one of the accused but considering the affidavit filed on behalf of complainant opposite party no.2 who is more than explicit in his submission that he does not wish to pursue the matter against any of the accused persons and which position has been reiterated by the learned counsel appearing on his behalf, I am of the opinion that it shall be in the interest of justice to put an end to the criminal prosecution even against the other accused persons who have not app

Applicable IPC Section: 323

Statute Text:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.