WP(C) 4625/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B D AGARWAL Heard Mr. IA Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms R bora, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. The petitioner’s case is that a proceeding under section 14 5 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated by the petitioner against the respondent No.5. In the meanwhile, the dispute has been amicably settled in between the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 in presence of witnesses. According to the learned coun sel, the compromise agreement was submitted to the office of Executive Magistrat e and the criminal proceeding was closed. Even then, the respondent No.5 has not removed the sanitary tank from the land of the petitioner in violation of the c ompromise agreement. In my considered opinion, the dispute is essentially between p rivate parties and also it is a civil dispute. Hence, the petitioner may approac h a competent Civil Court. I am not persuaded to proceed with the case under extra-ordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.