Alok Ranjan vs The State Of Bihar & Anr.

The present IA petition has been preferred to amend the prayer as to quash the entire proceedings of the complaint case no. 454(C) of 2018 pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Nalanda, Bihar sharif in view of compromise/settlement arrived between the parties.

Considering the submissions and reasons stated in petition, the prayer of present quashing petition is amended accordingly, and the prayer of this petition be read as amended.

Necessary steps if any to amend the prayer be taken by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of the day itself

With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of.

Heard the parties.

This petition has been filed for quashing of the orders dated 09.07.2018, 20.02.2019, 18.07.2019 and 18.10.2019 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Nalanda in Complaint Case No. 454(C) Of 2018 through which Learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Nalanda has issued process, bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant against the Petitioner without conducting any inquiry himself or directing an investigation as is mandatorily required in terms of Section 202 of Cr.P.C ignoring the fact that the petitioner is residing beyond the area in which Learned Magistrate exercises his/her jurisdiction and further issued bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant without waiting for the service report of summons as well as execution of bailable warrant of arrest.

The prosecution case is that the marriage of the complainant Jyoti Kumari was solemnized with Alok Ranjan (the petitioner) on 22.04.2015 as per Hindu Rituals. At the time of performing the marriage, the father of the complainant gave cash money of fifteen lakh to Rampravesh Yaday (father of the petitioner). After that, the marriage was completed and complainant was taken to her Sasural (Matrimonial house), where demand of car was made. All the accused person started torturing her, thereafter it is alleged that Rs. 2 lacs was given to the accused person. When the complainant reached her Sasural at Village Ganjpar with the petitioner and from there she was taken to Bangalore where the petitioner was doing Job, other co-accused i.e. her Saas(mother-in-law) and Sasur(father-in-law) went to Bangalore and brought the complainant back to Ganjpar. It is alleged that her pregnancy was terminated by other co-accused person against her will. After that, a Panchyati was convened in this regard but the petitioner denied to accept the decision of the panches to take the complainant back to Bangalore. Thereafter, it is alleged that the petitioner had performed second marriage with another girl and when the complainant came to know about this fact, she protested, then the accused persons tried to burn her by sprinkling kerosene-oil and assaulted her with Danda and ousted her from matrimonial house. The complainant went to Rajgir Police station but her case was not registered, hence, this case was filed in the court.

It is submitted by Shama Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that matter has been compromised between the parties and both parties have settled their dispute and differences amicably. It is also submitted that the dispute is private in nature arising out of a private complaint case and, therefore, in view of settlement continuing of the present pending proceeding before the court of learned trial court is only amounting an abuse of the process of court of law and, therefore, the entire criminal proceedings should be quashed including the cognizance order

The factum of compromise between the parties was also approved by learned counsel appearing for the informant, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Upadhyay. For better understanding of the fact, it would be apposite to reproduce the mediation report between the parties qua settlement of the dispute and differences, which was arrived at the mediation centre, Nalanda, Bihar sharif, which is annexed as Annexure-P/1 of IA No. 2 of 2026, which reads as under:-

Considering the aforesaid, this Court is convinced enough as the matter has been settled between the parties, therefore, the continuing of the present criminal proceeding before learned trial court would only amount to an abuse of the process of court of law.

Considering the aforesaid, the cognizance order dated 09.07.2018 with all its consequential proceedings including the initiation of proceedings under Section 82 and 83 of the Cr.PC against the petitioner is hereby quashed/set-aside.

Parties are directed to abide their terms and conditions of aforesaid settlement.

Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.

Let the copy of the judgment be sent to learned trial court forthwith with TCR, if any.