- (1.) THE petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order dated 9.4.2010 passed by Shri A.K. Shrivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in Jharia P.S. Case No. 185 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. No. 1221 of 2005 by which a joint petition filed on behalf of the petitioners and the opposite party No. 2 seeking permission for composition of the offence under provisions of Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C was rejected on the ground alone that dispute of huge amount was involved in the FIR and that the informant and other were not entered into compromise.
(2.) HEARD Mr. M.B. Lal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Pritush Lala learned councel appearing for the C.P. NO.2 who tiled a counter affidavit in this petition. Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel submitted that there was an error of record in the impugned order by which the learned Judicial Magistrate observed that the informant did not put his signature in the compromise petition. As a matter of fact, the compromise petition which was filed in the court below has been brought on the record (Annexure -4), from perusal of which it could be evident that joint petition for compromise was signed by the informant Ajit Kumar Keshri and four accused persons, who are the petitioners herein, stating therein that the parties have settled their dispute without any fear and any kind of pressure whatsoever. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the C.P. NO.2 it was stated that he was an informant in Jharia P.S. Case No. 185 of 2005 yet, during pendency of the case before the Trial Magistrate, good relationship developed and now he has no longer grievance against the petitioners as the matter already was settled outside the court and in support thereof, compromise petition was filed before the trial court on 1.4.2010 which were signed by the informant and all the accused thereon. It was requested in the counter affidavit that the compromise was effected voluntarily without any pressure. The informant -opposite party NO.2 further admitted that the petitioners had filed criminal cases against him vide C.P. Case No. 549 of 2005 and C.P. Case No. 699 of 2006 and both the cases have also been compromised between the parties in view of good relationship which now prevailed between both the parties. The present case has been registered under Sections 420/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners but admittedly no public policy or public money was involved in the dispute. It was purely a case of personal nature and therefore, parties may be permitted for composition by setting aside the order impugned.
(3.) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, I find that counter affidavit has been signed by the informant and xerox copy of the certified copy of the compromise petition, which was filed before the Trial Magistrate, as has been brought on the record, clearly indicates that both parties had signed it but the learned Trial Magistrate without applying his discretion and plausible reasons rejected the petition on the wrong notion that same was not signed by the informant, to which I find it to be an error of record. Mr. Lail has filed the certified copy of the said compromise petition. Let it be annexed with the record.;