IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35653 of 2007 SHIV KUMAR SHARMA & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 4/ 16.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel for the O.P. No.2. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 16.05.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 1105/06 whereby learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 323, 504 and 380 of the IPC and issue summons to the petitioners to face trial. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant has earlier filed a complaint case under Section 498A against the accused persons and other family members. The petitioners submit that time and again, they have tried for a compromise and wanted to give adequate money to the complainant so that she would be able to maintain rest of her life without any financial constraints. The petitioners are always ready to take care to take care of both the children. The petitioner submits that admittedly the alleged occurrence took place at parental house of the complainant, which is at Pirpainti. It is more than 50- 60 Kms. away from accused persons’ place. He also submits that it would be very improbable that two women namely Bidya Devi Sharma, mother-in-law and the widow sister-in-law, Rashmi Sharma would travel all the way to commit theft of properties of the complainant. 2 Counsel for the complainant states that accused persons had never shown effective desire to compromise the matter. He submits that they could have shown good gestures by depositing Rs. 30,000/-, as per observation of this Court vide order dated 13.08.2008 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2099 of 2006. It appears that complainant had made allegations against these three petitioners and three unknown against various provisions of Penal Code as well as Arms Act. The Magistrate found the case true only under Section 323 and 380 of the IPC. It seems improbable that the widow sister-in-law (petitioner No. 3) would also travel a distance of 50-60 Kms. to commit theft of properties of O.P. No. 2. She herself too is in category of daughter-in-law and evidence against her is of a very weak nature. As such, in facts of this case, I quash the order taking cognizance and issuing summons so far petitioner No. 3 namely Rashmi Sharma is concerned. However, it will be open to the parties to niche a compromise. In case, compromise fails, the remaining petitioners may take all these points at the time of framing of charge. With the aforesaid observation, this application is partly allowed. Sanjeet/ (S.P. Singh, J.)