IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.54442 of 2007 1. AJAY KUMAR SINGH , S/o Balram Singh 2. Nelam Singh, W/o Ajay Kumar Singh 3. Balram Singh, Son of late Ram Avtar Singh All residents of village Shankaro Tola, P.S. Mokama, District Patna, at present residing at Plot No. S – 2, Plot No. 64, Sector 6 (media Inclave) Vaishali, Gaziabad, Uttarpradesh …….. Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Alok Kumar, Son of Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shahi, R/o Geeta Sadan, Mohalla Park Road, P.S. Kadam Kuan, District Patna. …….. Opp. Parties ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ritesh Kumar No. 1, Advocate -------- 3 17.3.2009 Mr. Ritesh Kumar No. 1 files vakalatnama on behalf of O.P. No. 2, Alok Kumar - the complainant, of Complaint Case No. 2540 (C) of 2005. Let it be accepted and kept on record. This application by three persons arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No. 2540(C) of 2005 is for the quashing of order dated 24.5.2006 passed therein by Sri Bharat Tiwari, Judicial Magistrate, Patna, whereby he has taken cognizance under sections 406 and 420 IPC against the petitioners. Without entering into the thicket of facts this application can be disposed of immediately by virtue of the reason that the complainant and the named accused have during the pendency of the litigation in the court below amicably entered into a settlement compounding their disputes and differences and in pursuance thereof have filed a compromise petition in the court below, a copy whereof has been appended with this application as Annexure 2. - 2 - Mr. Kumar appearing on behalf of O.P. No. 2, the complainant, accepts the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise and have compounded their differences and disputes amicably at the instance of well wishers and common friends of the parties and good relationship has been restored amongst them. It goes without saying that offences under sections 406 and 420 IPC are compoundable at the instance of owner of the property in respect of which the breach of trust has been committed / the person cheated. Since the parties have amicably compounded their disputes and differences and good relationship amongst them had been restored, no gainful purpose would be served by keeping the litigation pending any further. In view of the compromise entered into between the parties and in view of the fact that the sections whereunder cognizance has been taken are compoundable this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.5.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 2540 (C) of 2005 is hereby quashed. Spd/- ( Abhijit Sinha, J )