IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41467 of 2007 BINAY KUMAR SINGH SON OF SRI BIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH, R/O MOHALLA- RAJEDNRA NAGAR ROAD NO. 12, P.S.- KADAMKUAN, DISTRICT- PATNA, AT PRESENT SANJAY GANDHI NAGAR, ROAD NO. 2, P.S.- PATRAKAR NAGAR, DISTRICT- PATNA Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. RANJIT KUMAR SON OF TAPESHWAR MISTRI, R/O VILLAGE- MAKHDUMPUR, P.O.+ P.S. MAKHDUPUR, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD, AT PARESENT POSTED AS CONTABLE NO. 611, IN SPECIAL BRANCH LINE, PATNA ROAD NEAR OLD SECRETARIATE, DISTRICT- PATNA ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Sheo Shankar Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party :- Mr. Shivendra Prasad, Advocate For the State :- Mr. R. B. Roy, APP 4 09/04/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 and learned APP. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.6.2007 and 10.8.2007 passed in G.R. No. 1880 of 2002 arising out of Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 159 of 2002 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patna has fixed the case for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and closed the prosecution evidence respectively. After having gone through the submissions of the parties and the pleadings on the record it appears that earlier the petitioner (informant) has compromised the matter with the opposite party no. 2 for which a compromise petition has been filed before the learned 2 court below but later on unnecessarily the dispute is being raised. In view of the above facts, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. This petition has no merit. It is accordingly, dismissed. avin (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)