IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37585 of 2007 1. DHANRANJAN SHARMA, S/o late Dinanath Sharma, r/o village Rampur Rudra, P.S. Panapur, District Saran 2. Om Prakash Gupta, Son of Sri Raghunath Prasad, r/o village Garkha, P.S. Garkha, District Saran. ….. Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Girija Devi, W/o Sri Kishun Ram, R/o village Hakma, P.S. Garkha, District Saran. …. Opp. Parties ----------- 5 3.12.2008 Heard Mr. Upendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, learned A.P.P. for the State. Although notice was validly served on O.P. No. 2 she has chosen not to appear and to contest this application. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners annexing therewith a copy of the compromise petition filed in the court below but whereupon no order has been passed since this quashing application is pending before this Court. The compromise petition which has been filed with the supplementary affidavit (Annexure 1) does not appear to be a proper compromise petition but a prayer made by the complainant to drop the case as he had entered into a compromise with the accused persons. The said petition has been signed by the complainant only and her signature has been identified by her accredited counsel. Therefore, the said petition cannot be said to be a compromise petition to indicate that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. However, this much is clear that there has been an amicable settlement between the parties out of Court and peace has - 2 - been restored amongst the parties and the complainant was not eager to persue the litigation. In that view of the matter in the event that both the complainant and the accused file a compromise petition in the court below duly signed by all the accused and the complainant and attested by their respective lawyers and a fresh petition seeking permission to compound the offences , the court below shall take into consideration the fact that the provisions under the Penal Code whereunder cognizance has been taken are compoundable. So far as the accusation under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned although the same is not compoundable but sanction of the appropriate authority is the condition precedent before cognizance can be taken and the absence of proper sanction may jeopardize the taking of cognizance. Keeping in view the aforesaid observation and the direction issued to the parties the court below shall take appropriate steps in the matter, hear the parties and dispose of the application in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made above. With the aforesaid observation this application is disposed of. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)