IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3347 of 2010 SMT.GEETA KARN & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 03 08.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 despite having entered appearance. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 22.4.2008 in Complaint Case No. 77 (C) of 2007, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class at Barh under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations are with regard to a sum of Rs.11,000/-. Both the provisions of the Penal Code and the Negotiable Instruments Act are compoundable in nature. A supplementary affidavit filed today states that the amount has been deposited by the petitioner before the court below by two different instruments valued at Rs.5500/- each. This application is, therefore, disposed off with directions to the court below to now deal with the matter appropriately in light of the offences being compoundable, the petitioner having tendered the amount in question keeping in mind the observations with regard to the obligation of the 2 Courts in compoundable disputes reported in Supreme Court ( 2008) 4 SCC 582 (MADAN MOHAN ABBOT Versus STATE OF PUNJAB) from paragraphs 5 and 6 as follows:- “5. It is on the basis of this compromise that the application was filed in the High Court for quashing of proceedings which has been dismissed by the impugned order. We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise and also in the light of the fact that the complainant has on 11-1-2004 passed away and the possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be ruled out. 6. We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” The application stands disposed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)