IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.73 of 2007 RAMCHANDRA PANDEY & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For petitioners- Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate, L.K. Sharma, Adv. For Opposite Party- A.M.P. Mehta For the State- C. Jawahar, A.P.P. 10 2.7.2008 The petitioner has challenged the order 27.10.2006 in which cognizance has been taken under Section 147, 148, 149, 324, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case is that the informant heard the sound of firing near the school building which was under construction. The informant went towards the school building and it is alleged that he saw the named accused persons resorting to fire. It is also alleged that the informant received a simple fire arm injury in his eye. It has been stated that the accused persons along with some unknown persons were creating hindrance in the construction of the school. It is also brought on record that there was a counter case in which similar allegations were made. Both the parties have filed a joint compromise petition before the Court below however, the Court below did not accept the compromise petition as the offences under Section 307 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act are not compoundable. Both the counsels submit that as far as the allegations under the Arms Act are concerned the very tenure of the First Information Report would suggest that along with the named accused persons there were some unnamed and unknown persons and it is submitted that these persons were the ones wanted to raise confusion amongst the two leading families of the village. The name of the petitioners have been dragged in this case due to village politics and 2 in fact at the time when the occurrence took place it was very dark and it cannot be said that the petitioners were carrying fire arms. It has further been submitted that the informant in this case has not made out a case under Section 307 as according to him he reached at the place of occurrence when he heard the sound of firing and while he was going towards the place of occurrence he received injury. Therefore, according to the counsels no case under Section 307 is made out as there is no intention on behalf of the accused persons to assault or cause injury to the informant. Reasons for the occurrence as stated in the First Information Report are that there appears to be dispute with respect to construction of the school building. It is further stated that there is no injury report to show that persons had received fire arm injuries and, therefore, it is submitted on behalf of both the counsels that there is no cogent proof that fire arms were in fact used in the said occurrence. In any event I find that the facts do not disclose the case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code another fact which is relevant in this case is that the parties do not want to quarrel with each other and to pursue the case and counter case. If this Court on super technical points rejects the prayer of the petitioner and the opposite party, it would virtually force the parties to fight with each other with no fruitful result and further waste of the Court’s time. In the result with the consent of the parties and on consideration of the submissions made by them, I quash the order dated 27.10.2006 passed in Nokha P.S. Case No. 89 of 2006 with respect to offences under Section 307 and 27 of the Arms Act as far as the petitioners are concerned. This application is accordingly allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)