Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.922 of 2002 ======================================================= Sharad Yadav Son of late Nand Kishore Yadav, resident of Tuglak Road, New Delhi, at present Consumer Affairs Food and Public Distribution, Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Sri Parmeshwari Prasad Nirala, M.L.A., Son of not known, resident of town, P.O. P.S. & District- Modhipura. .... .... Respondent/s ======================================================= === Appearance :- For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Hare Krishan Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party No. 2:- Mr. Shidhendra Narayan, Singh, For the State:- Mr. Z. Hoda, A.P.P. ======================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Heard Mr. Hare Krishna Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shidhendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Mr. Z. Hoda, learned A.P.P. for the State. The present criminal revision application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 10.7.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura in Madhepura P.S. Case No. 286/99 by which cognizance has been taken under [STATUTE] against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the 2 very outset submits that at the time when the matter was being considered by the Court below, the same was contested on merits and the order impugned came to be passed. He further submits that subsequent to filing of the present case, the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 who is the informant of the case have compromised the matter and the Sections being compoundable, this Court may pass appropriate orders. A duly affidavited petition in the nature of joint compromise petition on behalf of the petitioner as well as the opposite party no.2 has been filed in Court today. Though the same has been affirmed by opposite party no.2 but it bears the signature of the advocate on record for the petitioner also. In view of the aforesaid development, this Court does not feel it necessary to go into the merits of the case, in view of the fact that all the sections are compoundable. Since the parties have compromised the issue among themselves, it would be in the ends of justice that this Court allows the prayer for such compounding. Accordingly, the entire criminal prosecution including the order taking cognizance 3 dated 10.7.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura in Madhepura P.S. Case No. 286 of 1999 is quashed. This application accordingly stands allowed. Patna High Court Dated 16th of January, 2012 Anand Kr./NAFR (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 341

Statute Text:
Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. Wrongfully restraining any person. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.