IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. M. M. O. No. 93 of 2008 Date of decision: 3.3.2009 Kamal Jit Singh …..Petitioner Versus Brij Lal and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 .No For the petitioner: Mr. J.R. Poswal, Advocate. For respondent None. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) The petitioner herein intended to invoke the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate, by moving an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for directing the police to register a case against the respondents under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Precisely, the facts giving rise to the petition are that respondent Smt. Bimla Devi, went to the clinic of Dr. Ved Parkash to get her leg examined. On that day, she found the complainant Kamal Jit Singh present in his clinic, who was not qualified as a doctor. He tried to reset the fractured leg of Bimla Devi, which caused further damage because of his negligence. Thus, a case was registered by her against the petitioner under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code vide FIR NO. 97/2005 on 24.7.2005 in Police Station Kotkehloor, District Bilaspur. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes. 2 According to the petitioner herein, next day i.e. on 25th July, 2005, a compromise was effected inter se the parties in Jagatkhanna Panchayat whereby the petitioner, who was an accused paid Rs. 18,000/- to Smt. Bimla Devi and she as well as her husband Brij Lal respondent promised to withdraw the case against him, but, despite that Smt. Bimla Devi and her husband, did not withdraw the case thus they committed an offence under Sections 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. On consideration of the matter, learned Magistrate, before whom he moved an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, found that the contract entered inter se the parties was for illegal consideration thus the same was void and not admissible in the court of law. He further observed that the complainant knew that he had committed an offence and paid the amount with a view to get relieved himself from the wrath of a criminal case. Thus in the opinion of the court below, petitioner appeared to have exerted the pressure to compound the matter by filing the application aforesaid. Hence the petitioner committed another offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently the complaint in original was committed to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur for further orders in accordance with law. The Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate returned the complaint to the Trial Magistrate with the observation that there was no such provision for committal provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure. On receiving the complaint back, the learned Judicial 3 Magistrate found only course open to him to treat the application moved under Section 156 (3) as a private complaint which order has been assailed in these proceedings. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. Notice of hearing was given to the respondents but they chose to remain absent. On the facts in hand neither I find it a case worth taking action under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code as observed by the learned Trial Magistrate in his order dated 26.11.2007 against the petitioner nor he was empowered to commit the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, thus it was rightly returned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to him for want of such a provision under the Code. Further I find that the trial Magistrate below was also not competent to review his earlier order and treat the application of the petitioner as a private complaint against his wishes. In fact, by moving an application under Section 156 (3), the request of the petitioner was to direct the SHO Police Station concerned to register the case on the above noted facts. In his wisdom if the Magistrate thought it proper that it was not a case worth exercising the jurisdiction, he should have dismissed the application there and then by recording his reasons therefor. But the facts reveal that the case against the petitioner is pending trial for the offence punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code in the court which is compoundable with the permission of the Court, which option is available to 4 the petitioner. But any compromise, as alleged effected without permission of the court is not permissible under the law and no request to lodging of FIR can be allowed to exert pressure on the respondents. Therefore, the order dated 26.11.2007 to proceed against the petitioner under Section 201, Indian Penal Code and order dated 17.12.2007, treating the application as complaint against the wishes of the petitioner, both are unsustainable thus quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the application/complaint of the petitioner stands dismissed. Send down the records. March 3, 2009 (Surinder Singh),J. (cm)