Md. Zahid vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 18 July, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.43656 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -87 Year- 2004 Thana -GAYA KOTWALI District- GAYA

Md. Zahid S/O Md. Zainul Hassan Resident Of Village- Ahijan, Police Station-
Athmal Gola, District- Pata.

…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Samira Khatoon D/O Abdul Hanan Resident Of Mohalla- 40, Rifle Range
Road, Kolkata- 19
…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Nath Dubey
For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. M.K. Gautam, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date: 18-07-2017

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner, by means of this application under section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has invoked the inherent

jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the order dated

22.08.2008, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in Gaya

Kotwali P.S. Case No. 87 of 2004, whereby cognizance under section

498A, 307, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken against the petitioner.

Facts of the case, in short, is that the present first

information report was lodged by the informant against four named

accused persons including this petitioner, who is husband of the

informant. After investigation, police submitted final form

(Annexure-3) finding the case to be not true. On filing several
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43656 of 2013 dt.18-07-2017

2/3

applications by the informant, the case was reinvestigated. Witnesses

were produced and their statement under section 164 Cr. P.C.

READ  Kantilal Martaji Pandor vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 25 July, 2013

(Annexure-4) was recorded. None of the witnesses supported the

prosecution case. Police again submitted the final form vide

Annexzure-5. Thereafter Magistrate took cognizance of the offence

as per impugned order. All the named accused persons except

petitioner came before this Court for quashing the order taking

cognizance by filing Cr. Misc. No. 46886 of 2008. This Court vide

order dated 25.07.2013 (Annexure-6) allowed the application and

quashed the entire proceedings including the order taking cognizance

dated 22.08.2013. Thereafter petitioner approached this Court by

filing the present quashing application. Vide order dated 26.04.2017,

the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre. Report of the

Mediation Centre is at Flag “Z”. Perusal whereof shows that the

matter has been compromised between the parties. Parties have filed

a joint compromise petition stating that they are living together since

one year. Joint compromise petition is attached with the Mediation

Report.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner

is that the matter has been compromised between the parties, and as

such prays for quashing of the entire proceedings as well as the order

taking cognizance.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43656 of 2013 dt.18-07-2017

3/3

From perusal of the materials available on record and

the submissions made above, it is evident that the matter has been

compromised between the parties and they are living together

happily. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh

Versus State of U.P. reported in (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases

303 has laid down the law that criminal proceedings may be quashed

READ  Pyare Lal vs State Of Haryana on 20 February, 1997

even in non-compoundable cases by the High Court in exercise of its

extraordinary jurisdiction to restore peace between the parties and in

case the justice so demands. According to the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, if the offence involve private dispute between the parties of

commercial nature or matrimonial dispute and it is not related to a

heinous offence, the proceedings may be quashed.

In view of the above, the present application is allowed

and the entire proceeding including the order taking cognizance

dated 22.08.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in

Gaya Kotwali P.S. Case No. 87 of 2004 is, hereby, quashed.

The application accordingly stands allowed.

(Arvind Srivastava, J)
Manish/-

AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 11.07.2017
Uploading Date 19.07.2017
Transmission 19.07.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *