IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32998 of 2007 DEVENDRA PRASAD,SON OF LATE SHRI KRISHNA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SAKSOHRA, P.S.SAKSOHRA, PATNA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL, DISTRICT JAIL, SAHARSA…………………………………………..…PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. PAPPU RAM, SON OF LATE MAHENDRA RAM, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-MEDNI MAL, HARIJAN COLONY, P.S. HAJIPUR, DISTRICT-PATNA. ……………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 5. 12.11.2008. Heard Mr. Jagarnath Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pravin Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the prosecution arising out of SC and ST P.S. (Hajipur) Case No.67 of 2003 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120(B) and 504 I.P.C. as also Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST Act) arising out of Complaint Case No.1184 of 2003. It appears that one Pappu Ram, the complainant, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, filed the aforesaid complaint, inter alia stating that he was working as a barber in the District Jail, Hajipur for several years and their salaries were due since March, 2003 and arrears since 2000. It is said that they were told to receive payment on 18.4.2003 where both the accused persons, namely, petitioner and Ram Sumer Sharma, were present and their thumb impressions and signatures - 2 - respectively were taken on the payment register by making payment of Rs.5600 to the complainant, Rs.5300/- to Binda Mallick and so on and so forth. It is further learnt that this amount was distributed on the basis of the money received from the Treasury but later on they came to know that an amount of Rs,1,18,000/- had been withdrawn from the Treasury and only a part thereof had been paid to the complainant and others by making false entries in the register taking advantage of their illiteracy. It is also alleged that when the complainant and others requested for seeing the register the accused persons became infuriated and abused them in filthy language and the complainant was also threatened with dismissal from service. On the said complaint being filed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate transmitted the same to the SC/ST Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 17.6.2003 and the aforesaid case was registered on 11.9.2003. It appears that the co-accused, Ram Sumer Sharma, the Assistant Jailor, was Incharge of Accounts and payments were being made by him and the petitioner has been impleaded only because he happened to be the Superintendent of the Jail and was present at the P.O.. It further appears that the petitioner intervened in the matter and got the matter compromised between the complainant and the Assistant Jailor as far back as on 30.6.2003 and accordingly, a compromise petition was filed in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali, who sent a copy thereof to the concerned police station by way of information on the very same date. - 3 - It also appears that the said copy of compromise petition was received in the police station much prior to the registration of the case on 11.9.2003. Copies of the compromise petition and permission to compromise the matter have been appended to this application as Annexures -3 and 2 respectively. The learned counsel for both the parties has submitted before me that they have amicably settled their differences and disputes and are not eager to pursue the litigation any further. When the complainant himself is not eager to pursue the litigation any further, no gainful purpose would be served by allowing the proceeding to continue. Accordingly, the F.I.R., so far as the petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)