IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37145 of 2007 BAIDYA NATH RAUT, S/o Sri Dukhi Raut, Resident of Village-Maunbehat Tole-Nauwabhir, Police Station- Manigachi, District-Darbhanga. …….Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Superintendent of Police, District-Darbhanga. 3. Sri Rajendra Mauwar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Manigachi. Police Station, District-Darbhanga. Opposite 1st Parties. 4. Ram Sharan Bhandari, S/o Thakko Bhandari. 5. Thakko Bhandari, S/o Late Shreechan Bhandari. 6. Ghuran Bhandari, S/o Late Shreechan Bhandari. 7. Santosh Bhandari, S/o Ghuran Bhandari. 8. Budhani Devi, W/o Thakko Bhandari. 9. Manjula Devi, D/o Thakko Bhandari. 10. Geeta Devi, W/o Ghuran Bhandari. All serial Nos. 4 to 10 are residents of Village-Maunbehat Tole-Nauwabhir, Police Station-Manigachi, District- Darbhanga. …….Opposite Parties. ----------- 05. 29.01.2010 Heard the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in G.O. Case No. 299 of 2006 by which cognizance under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the present petitioner being the informant of the case. The background of the case is that on 06.07.2005 a complaint was filed by the present petitioner that the accused persons have tried to - 2 - commit unnatural offence upon the son of the informant and therefore he filed a complaint case before the court which was registered on 21.06.2005 as complaint case No. 864 of 2005 which was sent to the police for institution of the FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. However, while the case was pending for registration of the FIR a panchayati was convened and in that panchayati the parties agreed to compromise the matter between themselves and resultantly a compromise petition was filed in the court below stating such facts. However, in the meanwhile on 06.07.2005 the First Information Report was registered and during course of investigation a number of witnesses were examined who did not support the prosecution case presumably on account of the compromise and therefore the investigating officer filed a report recommending prosecution of the petitioner under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The explanation of the witness in not supporting is because a panchayati had been convened and a compromise had been arrived at between the parties and therefore it would not have been in the interest of - 3 - the parties that the allegation made in the complaint be dragged any further. Today the counsel for the private opposite parties No. 4 to 10 who were initially accused in the complaint filed by the present petitioner has appeared and still supports the factum that a compromise petition has been filed by the parties in the court below. In view of the fact that prior to the report of the investigating officer recommending prosecution under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code certain developments had taken place between the parties on account of which the witnesses did not support the factum of the occurrence, in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice that the order of cognizance be quashed. In the result, the application is allowed and the order dated 30.04.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga is set aside. Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)