Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.42292 of 2010 ====================================================== Baban Prasad Verma, s/o Sri Bhola Prasad Verma, resident of village - Karja Chatti, P.S. – Karja District - Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Shankar Prasad, s/o Ram Lakhan Sah, resident of Karja Chatti, P.O. + P.S. – Karja District - Muzaffarpur. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 7 05-10-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.K. Khare, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Nachiketa Jha, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of complainant / opposite party no. 2. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 26.8.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No. 1941 of 2008, Tr. No. 2584 of 2010. By the said order learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . Both the parties i.e. learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant / opposite party no. 2 jointly submits that during the pendency of this Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42292 of 2010 (7) dt.05-10-2012 2 / 3 2 petition good sense in between the parties has already prevailed and as such compromise petition has been filed before the court below on 12.3.2012. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of complainant / opposite party no. 2 annexing therewith a photo copy of certified copy of compromise petition duly signed by both the complainant and petitioner. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of materials available in the complaint petition, statement on oath of the complainant as well as in the statement of enquiry witnesses no fact has been disclosed showing commission of offence by this petitioner for the offence under [STATUTE] . This submission was not disputed by learned counsel for the complainant / opposite party no. 2. Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion that order of cognizance so far as [STATUTE] is concerned is not sustainable and is hereby set aside. Learned counsel for the complainant further submits that the complainant is not at all interested to proceed against this petitioner. In view of the facts and circumstances particularly the stand Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42292 of 2010 (7) dt.05-10-2012 3 / 3 3 taken by the parties, the Court is of the opinion that no purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to proceed against petitioner as it will amount to allowing abuse of the process of the Court and as such with a view to prevent abuse of the process of the Court it is desirable to set aside the order impugned so far as the petitioner is concerned. The petition stands allowed. Praful/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

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.