IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19742 of 2008 1. BASUKI SINGH S/O LATE AMBIKA SINGH 2. NAWAL SINGH S/O LATE AMBIKA SINGH 3. RANJEET SINGH S/O BASUKI SINGH 4. GUDDAN SINGH, S/O BASUKI SINGH ALL R/O VILL. SAHUR (KHARGORE PUTERIA) P.S. AND DIST. JAMUI --- PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRAVEEN KUMAR SINGH SON OF SRI MATHURA SINGH, VILL. JAGDISHPUR, P.S. SURYAGARHA, DIST. LAKHISARIA. --- OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioners : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh For the State : Mr. Mayanand Jha, APP ----------- 03 10.08.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioners are facing prosecution under Sections 406, 467,468 420 and 120B of the Penal Code on the strength of an F.I.R. lodged by opposite party no.2 with Surajgarha Police Station on 09.11.2005. According to the F.I.R., the informant was dealing in food grains. For dispatching the food grains to its destination he talked to petitioner no.3, on telephone who runs a transport agency in the name and style of Dhandhu transport. Pursuant to the said conversation and the agreed rates of transportation, two trucks were sent by said petitioner no.3 to the shop of the informant. It is further alleged that grains were loaded and both trucks departed for Joka at Kolkata on 02.10.2005. On 25.10.2005 when the informant went to collect his payment due for the said food grains at Joka, Kolkata, it was informed that the two trucks did not reach the destination. It appears that subsequent to the filing of F.I.R. the parties conversed with each 2 other. The dispute was resolved. While considering the bail application filed on behalf of petitioner no.3, learned Magistrate issued notice to the informant who appeared. It appears that a compromise application seeking permission of the Court was filed in the Court. On a consideration of the materials placed on record, learned Court below granted bail to one of the petitioners. While granting bail, learned Court below found and observed as under:- ^^-----vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k A voyksdu ls fofnr gksrk gS fd izLrqr okn esa mHk; i{k ds chp le>kSrk gks x;k gS ftlds leFkZu esa le>kSrk vkosnu vuqefr vkosnu ds lkFk nkf[ky fd;k x;k gS A lwpd Hkh U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gS vkSj budk dguk gS fd dfFkr edbZ o iSlk rhu vkSj pkj fnuksa foyEc ls izkIr gks pqdk gS vkSj mHk; i{k ds chp erHksn [kRe gks pqdk gS A lkSgknZ okrkoj.k cu pqdk gS A vkSj ;s fnukad 2-12-06 ls dkjk lalhfer gSa A vr% mDr ifjfLFkfr esa vkosnd vfHk;qDr dks tekur ij NksM+uk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gS A---^^ Subsequently, learned trial Court by the impugned order dated 06.01.2007 took cognizance under the aforesaid Sections based on the charge sheet which was submitted by the Investigating Agency. The said order has been impugned in the present application. On 30.03.2010, the matter was considered and notices were issued to the opposite party no.2. This Court in the said order observed as under:- “…..Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the bail proceedings, the opposite party no.2 has appeared in the Court below and has stated that he had received the money which was due to him. The offences are compoundable. Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 both by ordinary process and under registered cover, requisites etc. for which must be filed within a period of one week from today, failing which this application shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench…….” In spite of service of notice personally effected on 3 opposite party no.2, he has not chosen to appear and object to the prayer made in the present application. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the judgment rendered in the case of Jagdish Chanana & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. Reported in AIR 2008 SC 1968 ~ 2008 AIR SCW 2279 submits that in view of the facts appearing from the record the present criminal proceeding is required to be interfered with and quashed. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case considered the facts of the case and observed as under:- “In the light of the compromise, it is unlikely that the prosecution will succeed in the matter. We also see that the dispute is a purely personal one and no public policy is involved in the transaction that had been entered into between the parties. To continue with the proceedings, therefore, would be a futile exercise.” Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, is not in a position to support the present order in view of the present facts of the case. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and after going through the materials on record, this Court is satisfied that a compromise was entered into between the parties in connection with the present case and thereafter an application was duly filed in the Court. This is the reason opposite party no.2, in spite of service of notice on him, has not appeared in this proceeding to contest the same. Consequently I am satisfied that continuance of the present proceeding shall be a futile exercise and unnecessary drain on public time. Courts are already flooded with contested litigation between the parties. 4 Accordingly, the present application is allowed and order dated 06.01.2007, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai in Surajgarha P.S. Case no. 294 of 2005, G.R. case no. 852 of 2005 is hereby quashed and set aside. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)