IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32599 of 2009 RAKESH KUMAR @ RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3. 15.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The purpose of filing the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to get the order dated 7.7.2009 passed by Sri A.K. Srivastav, S.D.J.M., Danapur quashed as regards complaint case No. 245 (C) of 2005. By the said order the learned S.D.J.M., directed framing of the charges against the petitioners for committing offences under Sections 498(A), 379, 406, 315, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. For the present purposes it is not necessary to state the facts of the case except to point out that on appearance of the petitioners the evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. was recorded and thereafter the petitioners filed a petition under Section 245 Cr.P.C. praying thereby to be discharged as the charges according to the petitioners appeared groundless. The learned S.D.J.M., after perusing the evidence and hearing the parties passed the impugned order. It may appear from the perusal of Section 245 2 Cr.P.C., that the only consideration for passing the order under that particular provision was the evidence which was recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. and on such consideration, if the learned Magistrate finds the charges to be groundless then the order discharging the accused has to follow, else, the charges have to be framed as may appear from the provisions of Section 246 (1) (2) Cr.P.C. The ground for seeking the relief in the present petition was that the wife after having received the settlement amount had filed the compromise petition which was available on record of the case and it was futile to proceed with the trial as it could be ultimately ending in acquittal. In support of the contention, a decision rendered by a Bench of this Court in Bishundeo Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar & another reported in 2009 (4) PLJR 375 has been placed for my consideration. In the case cited before me, a complaint was filed in a case which was under Sections 420, 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Some of the offences may be permissible to be compounded by permission of the Court and the Court had permitted the compounding. That was the distinguished 3 feature of that case. Here in the present case, the situation as was available in that cited case is not available to the Court. It is a simple order under Section 245 Cr.P.C. Compounding as regards the offences may not be permissible under law itself, if the offences like those under Section 498(A) and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not permissible to be compounded by it. In that view of the matter the order of the S.D.J.M., Danapur cannot be said to be illegal on facts as also in law. So far as the question of compounding by the parties is concerned, it could be one circumstance under which the Court could be encouraged to give some direction to the court below that it could after framing of the charges fix the case for evidence, examine the complaint as witness No.1 and question her as generally on the facts of the case but specifically on the compromise and terms thereof, and if it is satisfied with the compromise, it should not proceed further for examining the other witnesses and proceed to dispose of the trial itself. The above exercise must be concluded preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the learned trial Court 4 either on production a copy or the same being transmitted to it. With the above observations, the petition is dismissed. S.S. (Dharnidhar Jha, J)