IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P.No.864 of 2010
1. Rajesh Kumar.
2. Mahendra Prasad Singh.
3. Lalita Devi @ Ram Shila Devi.
4. Dimpal Devi. ... ... ... ... ...Petitioner(s)
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Pammi Kumari. ... ... ... ...Opp. Parties
------------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K.SINHA
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate(s).
For the State: A.P.P.
-------------
02/ 21.02.2011
The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of the
entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance. The learned
Judicial Magistrate after enquiry, found prima facie offence under Sections
498A/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code in C.P.Case No.232 of 2005 against the
accused.
The learned Counsel Mr. Sanjeev Thakur at the outset submitted
that the dispute was resolved between the parties after some time and a joint
compromise petition was filed in the Court of Sri R.S.Singh, Judicial Magistrate,
1st Class, Bokaro in C.P. Case No.232 of 2005 on 04.01.2006 duly signed by
the complainant Pammi Kumari and all the four accused stating therein that with
the intervention of the well-wishers and common friends both the parties
compromised the case outside the Court and they did not want to proceed
further more but since the Sections of the alleged offence were non-
compoundable in nature, a separate petition for withdrawal was filed on behalf
of the complainant. In the separate petition filed by the complainant on the
same day on 04.01.2006 she stated that good relationship was restored
between the parties and she did not want to proceed with the case and she had
no loner grievance against the accused and since the sections were not
compoundable,
hence separate petition was filed for obtaining permission to compromise the
case.
Finally, the learned Counsel submitted that the said two petitions
and one more are left pending without any order of the Trial Magistrate
whatsoever and now bail bond of the petitioners have been cancelled and
warrants of arrest have been issued against them. The petitioners were under
impressions that compromise petitions were filed on behalf of the parties and
consequently decree of divorce was passed by the mutual consent of the
complainant wife and the accused husband Rajesh Kumar under Section 13B
Hindu Marriage Act, they did not appear in this case perhaps on wrong notions.
The petitioners may be permitted to file compromise petition afresh in view of
the proposition laid down in B.S.Joshi’s case.
2.
Heard the learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State-Opposite Party.
In view of the above submissions this petition of the petitioners is
disposed of with the liberty to file a compromise petition within 15 days of the
receipt of the communication of this order by giving reference to the B.S.Joshi’s
case and the order shall be passed within a week thereafter in accordance with
law. In the meantime taking the considered view, no coercive step shall be
taken against them during period of limitation mentioned here-in-above.
[D.K.Sinha,J.]
P.K.S.