IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13471 of 2007 1. Ash Narayan Singh Son of Late Ram Ishwar Singh 2. Biteshwar Singh 3. Jitendra Singh, both sons of Sri Ash Narayan Singh 4. Raju Singh, Son of Jagdish Singh All ( 1 to 4 ) are resident of Village- Rampur Diyara, P.S.Maner, District-Patna 5. Brajesh Kumar Singh, Son of Chandradeo Singh, resident of Village –Ganauli , P.S. Ara Muffasil, District-Bhojpur --------------------- Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Om Prakash Singh, Son of Sampat Kumar Singh , resident of Village- Dhmar, P.S. Ara Muffasil, District-Bhojpur ------------------ Opp.Parties. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.M. Rahman, A.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2 : Mr. Sarveshwar Tiwary, Advocate. ------------ O R D E R The five petitioners , who are arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No.1009 (C) of 2003 , have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 29.1.2005 passed therein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara , whereby he has taken cognizance under Sections 395 and 412 I.P.C. , as also Section 27 of the Arms Act against all the petitioners and the consequential order dated 28.7.2005 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, F.T.C.No.V, Bhojpur at Ara, whereby while dismissing the revision he has approved the order dated 29.1.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,Bhojpur at Ara. An additional prayer has also been made for quashing the entire criminal proceeding pending in the court of the learned Presiding Judge, F.T.C.No.II, Bhojpur at Ara with respect to - 2 - Sessions Trial No.57 of 2006 arising out of Ara ( Mufassil ) P.S. Case No.73 of 2003. It appears that the same set of petitioners had earlier filed Cr.Misc.No.45894 of 2006 on 3.11.2006 with identical prayer and the same on a prayer being made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the application had become infructuous was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.12.2006. The present application has been filed with similar prayer on the ground that a compromise had been entered into between the parties, but the same could not be brought on record of Cr.Misc.No.45894 of 2006, and as such, the complainant was not adhering to the terms of the compromise. There does not appear any merit in the submissions by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the instant application has to be dismissed primarily on two grounds: (i)Firstly, cognizance admittedly has been taken under Sections 395 and 412 I.P.C. as also Section 27 of the Arms Act, of which neither Section 395 nor 412 I.P.C. is compoundable , and as such, even if a compromise was entered into between the parties and a compromise petition was filed, no court could allow the compromise to be recorded ; (ii) Secondly, admittedly Cr.Misc.No.45894 of 2006 was dismissed as withdrawn as a prayer had been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the application had become infructuous and a prayer was made for permission to withdraw the - 3 - application. Once an application for quashing is dismissed as withdrawn, a second application seeking the same relief is not permissible nor can be entertained. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this application has to be dismissed which I do hereby. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 21st July,2009 Nawal Kishore Singh/ A.F.R.