IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court has the authority to quash proceedings in non-compoundable cases if the parties have settled their dispute and there is no likelihood of conviction, thereby preventing an abuse of the judicial process.

JUDGMENT :

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.) :

Heard Ms. Shatabdi Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Binay Krishna, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State duly assisted by Mr. Harsh Vardhan, learned counsel for the informant.

2. The present memo of appeal is being for setting aside of the cognizance order dated 09.11.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Samastipur in connection with Complaint Case No. (C.R. No.) 119 of 2021, whereby and whereunder the learned court has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the ‘I.P.C.’) and Section 3(i)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST Act”) against the appellant.

3. The facts of the case in brief is that on 17.06.2021, the complainant-opposite party no. 2 has filed the instant complaint petition being Complaint Case No. 119/2021 before the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Samastipur against the appellant alleging therein that O.P. No. 2/complainant, who is a member of scheduled castes and works as a labour, engaged by the appellant for painting his house in November 2020 against settled labour charge of Rs. 10,000/-, he started the work along with his other co-labourer, for which the appellant had given him Rs. 5000/-and promised to pay the remaining amount after completion of work. O.P. No. 2/complainant completed the whole work. On 13.06.2021, when complainant was standing near a shop, he saw that appellant was coming in car along with driver, he stopped him and demanded his remaining amount i.e. Rs. 5000/-, the appellant get down from his car and assaulted the O.P. No. 2/complainant and also said him as “Saala Dusaad”. When the O.P. No. 2/complainant defended himself, the appellant started beating him, where he saved him anyhow.

4. The statement of the complainant was recorded on 09.02.2022 and enquiry witnesses namely, (1) Sunil Paswan, (2) Shankar Paswan and (3) Amrit Paswan were examined on 02.08.2022. The copy of the deposition of enquiry witnesses are annexed as Annexure ‘2’ series to the present memo of appeal.

5. Thereafter, on 09.11.2022, the learned court, after perusal of the complaint and deposition of enquiry witnesses, took cognizance of the offence against the appellant under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3(i)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act.

6. Ms. Shatabdi Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submitted that the factual matrix which gives rise to the instant case is that on 14.03.2021, appellant’s Manager namely, Amit Kumar lodged a case being Dalsingsarai P.S. Case No. 072/2021 against Vinod Mahto, Ramudgar Mahto and Vinod Mahto alleging therein that the aforesaid persons along with 20-25 persons had demolished the shop owned by the appellant and looted costly goods kept therein. When the appellant stopped the accused persons from doing so, they started abusing him and threatened him to kill and also started firing in air. A copy of the said F.I.R. is annexed as Annexure ‘3’ to this memo of appeal.

7. Learned counsel submits that the present complaint case is the outcome of the aforesaid F.I.R. which is planted against the appellant.

8. On 08.01.2024, this Court had granted one week’s time to learned counsel for the appellant to bring on record as to whether matter has been compromised between the parties in view of submission. On 24.01.2024, this Court has been informed that the compromise petition on affidavit has been filed on 12.01.2024, but on perusal of the record the same found not available.

9. Today, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the compromise petition is available on record through supplementary affidavit. In paragraph ‘3’ of the supplementary affidavit, it is stated that on 12.06.2023 the matter was compromised between the app