DHANANJAY @ DHANANJAY KUMAR SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 206 · Decided: 02-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DHANANJA Y@ DHANANJA Y KUMAR SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 2, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
I 
DHANANJA Y@DHANANJA Y KUMARSINGHv. STATE OF BIHAR 
207 
2.1. A First Information Report must be read in its entirety. The parties A 
herein entered into transactions relating to supply of bags. The fact that 
some amount was due to the appellant from the First Informant, is not in 
dispute. The First Information Report itself disclosed that accounts were 
settled a year prior to the date of incident and the appellant owed a sum of 
about Rs.400-500 from 'G'. According to the said 'G', however, a sum of B 
Rs.1500/- only was due to him. It is in the aforementioned premise the 
allegations that 'G' and the appellant slapped the First Informant and took 
out Rs.1580/- from his upper pocket must be viewed. No allegation was made 
that the money was paid by the informant having been put in fear of injury or 
putting him in such fear by the appellant was intentional The First Informant, 
admittedly, has also not delivered any property or valuable security to the C 
appellant. [Paras 7-111[209-F-H;210-A-BI 
2.2. Distinction between theft and extortion is well known. Whereas 
offence of extortion is carried out by over-powering the will of the owner; in 
commission of an offence of theft the offender's intention is always to take 
without that person's consent. [Para 121 [210-B) 
D 
2.3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, no case 
under Section 384, IPC was made out in the First Information Report 
[Para 131 [210-CJ 
3. The Courts would have no power to allow compromise of a prosecution E 
when the same is not permissible in terms of Section 320,Cr.P.C. In the 
present case, no case has been made out for proceeding against the appellant 
under Section 384, IPC. In that view of the matter, there was absolutely no 
reason as to why the settlement arrived at by and between the parties could 
not have been accepted, as the same would not come within the purview of 
Sub-Section (9) of Section 320, CrPC. For the reasons aforementioned, F 
while quashing the charge framed under Section 384, IPC the Magistrate 
is directed to proceed to consider the question in regard to the maintainability 
of the compromise petition between the parties in accordance with 
law. [Paras 14, 16, 171[210-D;211-C-E] 
Bankat & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 12005) 1 SCC 343 and Badrilal G 
v. State of MP., [2005) 7 SCC 55, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 
2007, 
From the Judgment and Final Order dated 18-4-2006 of the High Court H 
208 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 2 S.C.R. 
A of Judicature at Patna in Crl. Misc. No. !0432/2003. 
Kumar Parimal and P.V. Yogeswaran for the Appellant. 
Gopal Singh for the Respondents. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 18.4.2006 
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous 
C No. !0432 of2003, whereby and whereunder a compromise between the parties 
was not accepted as the appellants were said to be involved in commission 
of an offence under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, I 860. 
3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. A written report was 
lodged on 6.9.2000 by the 2nd respondent herein alleging that on 31.8.2000 
D at about 5.00 p.m. some unknown persons had come to his room No.207 at 
Jagat Trade Centre at Fraser Road, Patna and informed him that as a sum of 
Rs.1500/- was due to him, he should make the payment thereof. Allegedly, 
on his reply that he would make the payment only of the amount due from 
him as per settled accounts; abusive language was used and he was slapped 
by one Gautam Dubey. A sum of Rs.1580/- was said to have been take11 away 
E from his upper pocket. A First Information Report was lodged on the basis 
of the said report after six days from the alleged date of commission of the 
offence. The parties, however, arrived at an amicable settlement of their 
dispute. A charge-sheet was filed on completion of investigation on 2.2.200 I 
against the appellant herein purported to be for an offence under Sections 
F 323, 384, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. An application 
for discharge was filed by the appellant under Section 239 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973, inter alia, on the premise that the disputes between 
the parties had

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.