IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30 of 1999 1. SAJJAN SINGH SON OF LATE LAKHAN SINGH 2. RAJA SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM NARESH SINGH 3. SURYABANSH SINGH, SON OF LATE KAMTA SINGH 4. KRISHNA MURARI SINGH SON OF LATE KAMTA SINGH 5. JANARDAN SINGH SON OF PARMESHWAR SINGH 6. UDDHO SINGH SON OF LATE POKHAN SINGH 7. ARBIND SINGH TOONTOON SINGH, SON OF RAJA SINGH ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- MAHAJPURA,P.S. BIKRAM, DISTT. PATNA 8. MADAN SINGH SON OF LATE RAM NARESH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLA-MAHAJPURA,P.S. BIKRAM, DISTRICT- PATNA……………………………………………..PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. CHANDRADEO SINGH SON OF LATE SUBHAG SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CAUTHIYA……. OPP..PARTIES. WITH Cr.Misc. No.238 of 1999 1. MADAN SINGH 2. MADHESHWAR SINGH 3. RAJA SINGH……… ALL SONS OF LATE RAM NARESH SINGH 4. SURAJ BANSH SINGH 5. KRISHNA MURARI SINGH, BOTH SONS OF LATE KAMTA SINGH 6. AWADHESH SINGH 7. ARJUN SINGH…….. BOTH SONS OF LATE RAMESHWAR SINGH 8. RAMASHISH SINGH SON OF LATE BHAGWAT SINGH 9. RAM BINAY SINGH @ RAM BINAY SHARMA SON OF RAMASHISH SINGH 10.UDHO SINGH SON OF LATE POKHAN SINGH 11.SAJJAN SINGH SON OF LATE RAM LAKHAN SINGH ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- MAHAJPURA,P.S. BIKRAM,DISTT. PATNA…………………. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. CHANDRA DEO SINGH, SON OF LATE SUBHAG SINGH,RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHAUTHIYA,P.S. BIKRAM,DISTRICT- PATNA….. OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. RAJIV KR VERMA VERMA,ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE :- MR. DAMODAR PD. TIWARY,ADVOCATE 2 7 23-4-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases and learned counsel for the State. In spite of notice nobody has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2, the complainant. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the allegation in the complaint cases which show that both the criminal cases are for the offence involving cutting away of crop from the land of the complainant. On behalf of petitioners it has been submitted that such cases of crop cutting between the same parties are recurring feature because the accused persons claim to be in possession over the lands as Bataidar while the land owners claim indifferently and on account of such dispute nine quashing applications and seven writ petitions were heard together and quashing applications were allowed by an order of this court dated 5-12-1995 contained in annexure-2 on the ground that subsequently parties had compromised their differences and the disputed land has been sold to the Bataidar/ accused persons to which category the petitioners of these two cases belong. It has been submitted that only these two cases between the same parties have remained pending and since the lands have been sold in favour of the petitioners/accused persons by sale deeds which have been brought on record in these cases through supplementary affidavit, the complainant has lost interest in the matter and is not appearing to contest the quashing application. 3. On considering the relevant facts and the 3 aforesaid submissions it is found that the lands in question have been conveyed to the accused persons including the petitioners by registered sale deeds and parties have compromised their differences and hence keeping the criminal cases pending will be an abuse of the process of court and hence both these applications are allowed and the criminal proceeding against the petitioners such as Bikram P.S. Case No.160/92 and Bikram P.S.Case No. 158/88 pending before Judicial Magistrate, Ist. Class, Danapur are hereby quashed. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)