IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.50777 of 2008 VISHNU KUMAR MASKARA @ VISHNU KUMAR, S/o Sri Narayan Prasad Maskara, Resident of Kirana shop Sadar Bazar, Jamalpur, below the office of Rani Sati Investiment, P.S.- Jamalpur, District- Munger. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 10.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 17.07.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Munger in G.R. case no. 2061 of 2003, arising out of Jamalpur P.S. case no. 200 of 2003, by which his petition for discharge has been rejected. The case was instituted on written report of one Raj Kishore Saha. In his written report he stated that he sold 4000 shares of Rastriya Chemical Fertilizer through Ranisati Investment, for which corresponding value of cheque was issued. The informant then purchased 1300 shares of Reliance Petroleum. He sold 400 shares of Kedia Health Care and 1000 shares of IDBI to Ranisati Investment valuing Rs. 75,320/-, for which a cheque was also issued. However no payment of the shares was made by the broker. The informant alleged that this accused/petitioner is the owner of the Ranisati Investment. The petitioner states that the dispute has been reconciled and necessary payment has been made to the informant. However, cognizance has been taken under Section 406, 120 B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, a petition for discharge under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. has also been rejected by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Munger vide his order dated 17.07.2008. - 2 - It would appear from the prosecution case that the dispute is a personal one between the two contesting parties and it has arisen on account of expansive business arena. The informant has received his money and according to petitioner, does not want to pursue the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision in case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582. In the aforesaid case a compromise was filed. However, application for quashing of First Information Report was declined by High Court on grounds that offence under Section 406 Indian Penal Code is not compoundable, as the amount involved is more than 250 and the case is already fixed for the examination of the prosecution witnesses. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that where a dispute is purely a personal one between two contesting parties, arising out of extensive business dealings between them and where there is absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the proceeding in the light of the compromise. In the instant case, I find that the grievance of the informant has been redressed and he has filed a compromise petition. Furthermore, dispute has arisen on account of extensive business dealing and no public policy is involved. The compounding of the offence should not be confused with quashing of the proceeding. It would be relevant to quote paragraph nos. 5 and 6 of the judgment in case of Madan Mohan - 3 - Abbot (supra). “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 11.01.2004 passed away and the possibility of a conviction being recorded has thus to be ruled out. 6. We need to emphasize 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.” In this view of the above, I think that no useful purpose will be served in allowing the prosecution to be pronged. In such circumstances, this Court observes that if the informant appears before the court below and accepts the factum of - 4 - compromise, then in such circumstance, learned Magistrate in seisin of the case would dispose of the case in the light of the compromise petition not with standing the order rejecting the discharge petition. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)