ABFNAAH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Cri. Misc. No. 3915 of 1995 (R) and Crl. Rev. 124 of 1995 (R) as both of them have been filed against the same order passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, on 22-7-1995 in S. T. No. 401 of 1995. The first case arises out of Kotwali P. S. Case No. 358 of 1993 dated 26-7-1993 under Section 448, 341, 323, 307 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The second case arises out of Kotwali P. S. Case No. 354 of 1993 (C. R. No. 2221 of 1993). In the first case opposite party No. 2, Madan Lal Gupta is the informant while in the second case opposite party No. 2 Chandan Prasad is the informant. Both these persons are real brothers being sons of late Lal Bihari Sahu. The accused persons in both the cases are wife, son, daughter and nieces of the two informants, as the case may be.

(2.) After charge-sheet was submitted, in pursuance of the commitment proceedings before the concerned Judicial Magistrate, the accused were sent up for trial before the Court of Sessions. Before the stage of framing charge had arisen, both the parties filed joint compromise applications before the learned Court below. It was stated therein that being members of practically of the same family good sense had prevailed between them and they had amicably settled their disputes and, therefore, the compromise between them may be accepted and necessary order passed.

(3.) It is not disputed that except for the alleged offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, alt other offences referred to above, are compoundable. Therefore, on behalf of the parties it was urged by their learned counsel that treating it as a special case, the learned Court below may allow the compromise. In support of their prayer a reported decision of the Supreme Court was also cited, namely Mahesh Chand V/s. State of Rajasthan, 1988 AIR(SC) 2111 In this decision the offence was also under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Moreover counter case arising out of the same occurrence had already been compromised. Therefore, the apex Court permitted the parties to compound the case, treating as a special case. There are various other decisions of this Court, Rajasthan High Court as also the Supreme Court. In tbe impugned order of the learned Court below, all these decisions have been referred to and it has also been observed that in view of these decisions, the compromise should be accepted in all fairness. Despite this the learned Court below has neither allowed the compromise between the parties nor their compromise applications have been specifically rejected. On the other hand, the learned Court below without any relevance to the question of compromise between the parties, has fixed a date for hearing on the point of charge.