IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.282 of 2009 HAYUM, son of Md. Qais, resident of village- Lahladpur, P.S. Madhuban, District- East Champaran. . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Home Secretary 2. The Superintendent of Police, East Champaran. 3. The Officer-in-charge, Madhuban Police Station, District East Champaran. 4. Bibi Sarifan, wife of Wadood, resident of village-Gangapur, P.S. - Madhuban, District- East Champaran. . . . . Respondents. ----------- 3/ 23.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner prays for quashing the First Information Report of Madhuban P.S. case no. 159 of 2008 arising out of Complaint case no. C-680 of 2004. Initially, a complaint was filed by respondent no.-4, bearing complaint case no. C-680 of 2004 under Sections 376, 379, 354, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code on 13.10.2004. The Magistrate referred the matter to the police for institution of a regular case under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Though the case was referred for institution of an F.I.R. in the year, 2004, the same remained pending for about four years. In the meantime, the complainant and the accused had entered into compromise and the matter was referred to Mobile Lok Adalat at Motihari. On 23.06.2006, the Mobile Lok Adalat, Motihari disposed of the case in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties. It would also be relevant to point out here that the learned Magistrate on 14.10.2005 had recalled its earlier order, by which complaint case was sent to police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, as parties had entered into compromise. - 2 - Learned counsel submits that much after disposal of the case on 23.06.2006, a regular First Information Report, on the basis of aforesaid complaint, was instituted in the year, 2008. Learned counsel further submits that once the complaint case itself stood disposed of then on the basis of disposal of complaint case, institution of First Information Report would be bad in law. Counsel for the State does not controvert the fact that the complaint case was disposed of by Mobile Lok Adalat on 26.03.2006, much prior to its conversion into police case. On perusal of the materials on record it appears that the complaint case was filed in the year, 2004 and also referred to police for institution of a regular case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in that year itself. A regular case being Madhuban P.S. case no. 159 of 2008, was instituted under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. only in the year 2008 after four long years. It is relevant to state that prior to the institution of the aforesaid case, the Magistrate had recalled its earlier order in the year, 2005 itself by which the complaint was sent to the police station for institution of case and regular investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Magistrate recalled its earlier order referring the case to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as parties had compromised the matter. Then the matter came before the Mobile Lok Adalat, which disposed of the case on 26.03.2010 in terms of compromise entered between the parties. Thus, once the complaint case itself stood disposed of, then on the basis of complaint case, which was no longer in existence, - 3 - institution of First Information Report would not be in consonance with the scheme of Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. The follow up steps by police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. could be only taken, if the complaint is alive on that day. Existence of complaint case is paramount for institution of an F.I.R. under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and its consequent investigation thereof. In this view of the above discussion, the criminal prosecution pending in the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sikarhana at Motihari, arising out of Madhuban P.S. case no. 159 of 2008 could not itself have been instituted under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and is accordingly quashed. The application stands allowed. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)