ATUL CHANDRA MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :This is an application for quashing the order dated 29.06.2008 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in S.T. No. 91 of 2003 whereby and whereunder he rejected the application of the petitioners for recalling the prosecution witnesses. The petitioners further pray for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with S.T. No. 91 of 2003 on the basis of joint compromise petition filed by the parties.

(2.) IT appears that on the basis of written report filed by the informant, Chandra Deo Mahto, Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 19 of 2002 dated 14.04.2002 under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 307 of the I.P.C. instituted and police took up investigation. After completing investigation, police submitted charge -sheet and accordingly cognizance was taken under the said Sections. Since, the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed to the court of Sessions and accordingly S.T. No. 31 of 2003 was instituted. It further appears that charge framed against the petitioners under Sections 148, 149, 323, 307 of the I.P.C. and thereafter the witnesses were examined. The record further reveals that the statement of accused persons (petitioners) had already been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 23.02.2004. It further appears that on 26.04.2006, a compromise petition filed by the parties, but the same has been rejected by the court vide order dated 01.06.2006 on the ground that the offence under Section 148, 149 and 307 of the I.P.C. are not compoundable. Thereafter, another application filed on 22.06.2006 for recalling the prosecution witness Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. because the parties had compromised their case outside the court. The said application also rejected by the impugned order. Against that the present case has been filed.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Additional P.P. submits that admittedly the offence under Sections 148, 149 and 307 of the I.P.C. is not compoundable as per the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further submitted that the case of the prosecution has already been closed and the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had also been recorded much before the date of filing of compromise petition. Under the said circumstance, after the close of the case of prosecution the question of recalling prosecution witnesses that too on the behest of defence does not arise. It is submitted that acquittal of accused on the basis of compromise for an offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is against the society and it involve public policy. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no illegality in the order of court below which requires any interference by this Court.