IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4941 of 2009 PRAKASH SINGH & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR For the Petitioners:- Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, Advocate For the O.P. No.2:- Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Advocate For the State:- Mr. D. Mehta, A.P.P. ----------- 03 14.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. The allegations in Sachivalaya P.S. Case No. 100 of 2007, under Sections 448, 500, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code are that while opposite party no.2 was sitting in his living room, he heard commotion outside. He saw 3 to 4 persons along with petitioner no.1, an N.D.T.V. news reporter, with their camera. His Guard asked them to go out but they refused and told the informant that they wanted to ask some questions. He declined to speak and started to return to his bed room. They followed him and forcibly started to ask him personal questions with regard to the rape and death of a Muslim girl. He told them to leave the place. The petitioners abused him calling him a „goonda,‟ thief and rapist. The opposite party no.2 got angry and told his staff to chase them away. In this melee, the 2 camera fell down and broke. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the offences are all compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., under the first table itself while only those in the second table are compoundable with the leave of the Court. It is additionally submitted jointly that even other cases filed with regard to the same occurrence have also been compromised. The dispute being purely private in nature stated to have occurred inside the house of opposite party no.2, the allegations in the dispute raising no issues of public morality and public safety etc. this Court can do no better than quote paragraph- 6 from 2008 (4) SCC 582 (MADAN MOHAN ABBOT VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB) to hold that there shall be no justification to allow the present proceeding to continue any further. “6. We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense 3 approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” In view of the dispute having been compounded, the proceedings in Sachivalaya P.S. Case No. 100 of 2007 are quashed. The application stands allowed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)