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

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

On a reading of the First Information Report in its entirety, no offence under Section 384 IPC is disclosed since there is no allegation the informant was intentionally put in fear or dishonestly induced to deliver money. Therefore, the charge under Section 384 IPC is quashed and the magistrate is directed to consider the compromise petition between the parties as the bar under Section 320(9) CrPC is not attracted in this case.

Parties
Appellant: Dhananjay @ Dhananjay Kumar Singh; Respondent: State of Bihar; Accused: Gautam Dubey; Respondent: Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Order Rejecting Compromise and Discharge Application
Outcome
Appeal allowed; charge under Section 384 IPC quashed; matter remitted to magistrate to consider maintainability of compromise petition.
Legal Topics
Extortion, Compoundability of Offences, Quashing of Charge, Section 384 IPC, Section 320 Cr PC
Criminal Law Extortion Compoundability of Offences Quashing of Charge Section 384 IPC Section 320 Cr PC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dhananjay @ Dhananjay Kumar Singh

Appellant

State of Bihar

Respondent

Gautam Dubey

Accused

Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Order Rejecting Compromise and Discharge Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether allegations in the First Information Report make out an offence under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code
  2. 2 Whether a compromise between parties in a prosecution for Section 384 IPC can be accepted
  3. 3 Whether courts have power to allow compromise in a prosecution not permissible under Section 320 CrPC

Ratio Decidendi

On a reading of the First Information Report in its entirety, no offence under Section 384 IPC is disclosed since there is no allegation the informant was intentionally put in fear or dishonestly induced to deliver money. Therefore, the charge under Section 384 IPC is quashed and the magistrate is directed to consider the compromise petition between the parties as the bar under Section 320(9) CrPC is not attracted in this case.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; charge under Section 384 IPC quashed; matter remitted to magistrate to consider maintainability of compromise petition.

Orders

  • Charge under Section 384 IPC quashed.
  • Magistrate directed to consider the maintainability of the compromise petition between the parties in accordance with law.