CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Nand Kumar Pandey and Others vs The State of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 23 July 2013 · Citation: (2013) 3 PLJR 602

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashwani Kr. Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 173(2), 482 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 323, 34, 341, 504, 506 · Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(x)
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 29742 of 2013
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 369 words

Ashwani Kr. Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners have been made accused in Hussainganj P.S. Case No. 284 of 2012 dated 28.10.2012 registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2.

The police investigated the case and finding the allegations to be true submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners in the case. The teamed Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan after taking into consideration the F.I.R., the police report submitted u/s 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the materials collected in course of investigation took cognizance of the offence under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3.

The aforesaid order dated 18.5.2013 has been challenged by the petitioners by filing the present application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the informant of the case has compromised the case with the petitioners and as such the order impugned be quashed.

5.

In my view, the application is misconceived. The offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not compoundable in nature. In that view of the matter, the order taking cognizance cannot be quashed. It is true that this Court in exercise of power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can quash a prosecution in a case which is not compoundable in nature if the dispute is purely of a personal nature or of some business transaction. However, the same principle cannot be applied for quashing an application in which an offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out. The aforesaid Act has been enacted by Parliament in order to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the present application. It is dismissed, accordingly.