Criminal Miscellaneous No.1444 OF 1998 ------ In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------- Dr Bindeshwar Pathak, son of Late Ramakant Pathak, resident of village- Rampur Bhagel, Police Station Desri, District Vaishali, at present resident of Patliputra Colony, Police Station Patliputra, district Patna ..... Petitioner VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar 2. Ram Sukumar Jha, son of Late Tapeshwar Jha, resident of village Siho, Police Station Sakra, District Muzaffarpur, at present residence of Energy International, Agamkuan, Police Station Alamganj, District Patna ...... Opposite parties. ------ For the Petitioner : Mr S.Alamdar Hussain, Advocate For the State : Ms Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP For the Opposite Party : Mr G.K.Jha, Advocate -------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH Shiva Kirti Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for the complainant, opposite party no.2. 2. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 25.9.1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Patna in Complaint Case No.473 (c) 97 leading to T.R.1181/97 relating to offences under Sections 504 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted on the basis of Annexure-2 that because of being business rivals at the relevant time some other cases were also pending between the parties which were subsequently compromised as would appear from joint petition of compromise in Complaint Case No.194 (c) 88 filed before Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Patna. It has been submitted that this case is also under simple and compoundable sections of the IPC and photocopy of order-sheet of the court below has been produced to show that on 22.1.2000 the complainant filed a petition for withdrawal of the complaint under Section 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same was moved on 1.3.2000 but the court below expressed its inability to deal with the petition on account of interim stay operating in the present case pending before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant expresses ignorance about the application filed in the court below to submit that if the parties have compromised their differences as appears from the order- sheet of the court below then the matter should be left to the court below for disposal on the basis of withdrawal petition filed by the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for superfluous and minor offence the case has remained pending for about 13 years and for such offence the petitioner should 3 not be sent back to the trial court, particularly when the case has remained stayed under orders of this Court since 1998. 5. Considering the superfluous allegations in the complaint petition of simple abuse and allegation of one or two slaps being given by the petitioner while he was sitting in a car and the complainant was standing outside, it is not in the interest of justice to allow this case to remain pending any further, particularly when the order-sheet of the court below shows that in the year 2000 itself, an application under Section 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed for withdrawal of the complaint case. 6. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, the prayer for quashing is allowed and the impugned order of cognizance as well as the entire proceeding of the complaint case are hereby quashed. 7. Let the photocopy of the order-sheet of the court below be kept on record. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) Patna High Court The 20th April, 2010 NAFR/ S.Kumar