IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.6176 of 2008 RAMAWTAR KHETAN Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03. 30.04.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State Mr. Bhopesh Kumar. The present application has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R. of Araria P.S. Case No. 163 of 1986 registered under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that investigation is pending since 1986 which has not been controverted by learned counsel for opposite party. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that the petitioner was supposed to supply the bitumen to the S.D.O., P.W.D., Road Subdivision No. II, Araria but on verification it was found that the short supply was made resulted in loss to the department worth Rs. 2,83,273,48 paise. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party which has been sworn by Nirayan Kumar, Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Araria whereby the prosecution case has been justified but in paragraph No. 9 of counter affidavit it has been claimed that the government money has not been returned. Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to 2 make payment of the aforesaid loss within a period of two months from today. Learned counsel for the State on the instruction of the informant agrees that if the payment is made, the prosecution is not interested in pursuing the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited decision reported in 2008(4) SCC 582(Madan Mohan Abbot versus the State of Punjab) in which it has been held that where the dispute involved of purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accepts terms of compromise even in criminal proceedings. Paragraph 6 of Madan Mohan Abbot(Supra) reads as follows:- “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” 3 Though in the present case the dispute is not of personal nature rather of contractual nature but taking the broader view of the aforesaid principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot(Supra), the nature of dispute being contractual, the investigation being pending since 1986, there is no likelihood of the trial being started in near future and the prosecution not interested in persuing the case if the loss is compensated, no useful purpose will be served in allowing to continue the present case. In the circumstances, the F.I.R. of Araria P.S. Case No. 163 of 1986 is hereby quashed subject to the settlement of all the claims of the informant by the PWD Department of Araria and the deposit of such settled claim amount within two months by the petitioner in the Nazarat of learned C.J.M./A.C.J.M, Araria which will be immediately released to the P.W.D. department of Araria. With the aforesaid observation, the application stands allowed. Shageer (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)