IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45701 of 2008 SURESH CHANDRA PRASAD …Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR …Opposite party For the petitioner : Mr.N.K.Agrawal, Sr. Advocate, : Mr.D.N.Tiwary & : Mr. K.C.K. Sinha For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 02. 07.09.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Accused of the FIR being Shastri Nagar P.S.Case No.61/2007 filed the present application challenging the order taking cognizance dated 15.11.2007, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna whereby cognizance under sections 379,506 and 504 IPC was taken. During the pendency of the application, a joint compromise petition has been filed on behalf of the informant Ashish Ranjan as well as the petitioner-accused Suresh Chandra Prasad. The following averments have been made therein: 1. That the Joint Compromise petition filed on behalf of the informant and petitioner. 2. That due to intervention of common friends and well wishers both parties have compromised the aforesaid case outside the court without any pressure or coercion. 3. That in the aforesaid case cognizance has been taken u/s 379,506 and 504 and section 504 of the 2 I.P.C. is compoundable by the person insulted. Section 506 is compoundable by the person intimidated and section 379 of the I.P.C. is also compoundable by the owner of the property stolen, with the permission of the court. 4. That due to compromise good relation has been restored between the parties and now both parties do not want to proceed with case further. 5. That now the informant has no grievance against the accused persons. 6. That in token of compromise both parties and their respective lawyers have put their signature upon the compromise petition. 7. That there is no Public Police involve in this case. 8. That under the facts and circumstances of the case this compromise petition may be allowed. Both parties rely on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 582 (Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab) in order to submit that if in view of the present position it is found that no useful purpose is served in continuing with the proceeding in the light of the compromise the Court should allow such application. It is submitted that if the accusations are petty in nature, the Courts ordinarily should accept the compromise as the pendente lite development will make the criminal proceeding infructuous or redundant. It is 3 also submitted that sections involved are compoundable. Both the counsels submit that in the fitness of thing, this Court should allow the application and quash the proceeding as the criminal courts are already grossly over-burdened by serious criminal litigations. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. The allegations are petty in nature. Parties have reconciled the issue(s) and have come to terms as disclosed in the application. In that view of the matter, this Court accepts the compromise filed on behalf of the parties and quash the criminal proceeding. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )