IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.679 of 2010 1. DASARATHAN WENCES LAUS WINDSOR @ D.W. LAUS the then Shift-in-charge, Secondary Department ITC Limited, Munger 2. Tapan Kumar Datta @ T.K. Dutta, the then in-charge, Secondary Department ITC Limited, Munger. . . . . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR & 2. Sri Dinesh Kumar, Inspector, Central Excise, Range-I, Munger. . . . . . Respondents. For the Petitioners : Mr. B.P. Pandey, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Rohitabh Das, Advocate For the State : Mr. Neeraj Nandan, G.P.18 ----------- 3/ 25.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. In the instant writ application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 30.07.2008, as contained in Annexure- 6, passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger in G.R. Case no. 911 of 1998, arising out of Kotwali P.S. case no. 278 of 1998 whereby the court below has rejected the prayer for stopping the proceedings and discharging the accused under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioners have further prayed for setting aside the subsequent order dated 12.03.2010, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Munger in Cr. Revision no. 07 of 2009, affirming the order of the learned Magistrate. On 28.05.1998, Inspector Central Excise posted at Munger Range-I, pursuant to secret information started checking the vehicles under Rule 200 of the Central Excise Rules in front of I.T.C., gates. In course of search, raiding party came across the vehicle driven by D.W. Laus, Shift-in-charge, Secondary Department, ITC Limited, Munger. However, petitioner no.1 locked the car and rushed to the I.T.C. premises and came with petitioner no.-2, the incharge, Secondary Department, ITC Limited, Munger, 2 followed by 100 workers. It is alleged that these persons opposed the officers and challenged the authority to check the car. They raised slogans as well. The case being Kotwali P.S. case no. 278 of 1998 was instituted under Sections 341, 353 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet for the said offences. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the case on 25.01.1999, joint compromise petition signed by the parties was filed in the court stating therein that the matter has been settled out of Court, the persons involved were not aware of the duties of the Excise Department regarding search of private vehicle. Further more, the search was made due to some confusion, which stood later on clarified. He further submits that P.W.1 and P.W.2 deposed in the court and accepted the factum of compromise and submitted that case was instituted on account of confusion. He further submits that the learned Magistrate ought to have stopped the proceeding under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C., as the offences were summons triable. Learned counsel further submits that even if the offences are non-compoundable, if it does not relate to heinous crime, the same can be considered. Learned counsel has relied upon decisions in case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, reported in (2008) 16 SCC 1 and in case of Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and others, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 677. This is a case of year 1998 and is a summons triable. Further more, the informant and another witness has supported the factum of compromise and has further stated that this case has been 3 instituted on account of certain confusion. In such cases, principles laid down in case of Manoj Sharma (Supra) would apply. This Court directs the trial court to conclude the trial within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If no witness is forth coming, the Magistrate would not wait for any witness, as the informant and other relevant witness has already stated that compromise has arrived at between the parties and the case has been instituted on account of confusion. The Magistrate would dispose of the case on the basis of materials existing within that period. The learned Magistrate while disposing of the case would take into consideration the compromise petition as well. With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of. Pending final disposal, no coercive action would be taken against the petitioners. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)