IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16702 of 2008 RAMESH KUMAR AGARWAL Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 25.8.2008. Heard Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner. None is present for the State. The grievance of the petitioner is against that part of the order dated 16.4.2007 and 6.12.2007, whereby Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, has taken cognizance for offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B I.P.C. in connection with Complaint Case No.853(C) of 2007 and also rejected the prayer of the petitioner to record a compromise. By the impugned order dated 6.12.2007 , it appears that the learned Magistrate refused to record the order of compromise only because according to him an offence under Section 406 I.P.C. is compoundable only if the value is less than Rs.250/- but in the instant case the amount involved being Rs.45,234/- and was not covered by Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. The law in respect of compromise for offence under Section 406 I.P.C. is by now well settled by the decision in Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008)4 SCC 582 , wherein their Lordships have observed in paragraphs 6 and 7 as follows: “6. We need to emphasise 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 - 2 - 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 utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law. 7. We see from the impugned order that the learned Judge has confused compounding of an offence with the quashing of proceedings. The outer limit of Rs.250 which has led to the dismissal of the application is an irrelevant fact in the later case. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and in the peculiar facts of the case direct that FIR No.155 dated 17.11.2001 PS Kotwali, Amritsar and all proceedings connected therewith shall be deemed to be quashed.” In that view of the matter, if the parties have entered into a compromise and are not eager to pursuing the litigation any further, the amount involved exceeding or governing Section 406 I.P.C. becomes immaterial and no gainful purpose would be served by continuing the case any further since neither the complainant nor the accused are interested in pursuing the matter. In that view of the matter on filing of a fresh petition of compromise in the court below, the learned court below shall act in accordance with law and the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also of this Court as made above. With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)