IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11843 of 2009 MD.MINUTULLAH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the Petitioners: Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate For the O.P.:- Mr. Arun Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State:- Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P. ----------- 04 02.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of cognizance dated 24.10.2008 in Kishanpur P.S. Case No. 89 of 2005, G.R. No. 733 of 2005. The allegations are that the informant is the first wife of the deceased. The petitioner no.2 is alleged to be the second wife. Petitioner no.1 is stated to have been born from petitioner no.2. There is no pleading whatsoever with regard to identity of petitioner no.3 much less any role played by him or benefits obtained by him. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are alleged to have obtained signature of opposite party no.2 on certain papers, converted them into affidavit and application by which they have cheated the opposite party no.2 of the monetary benefits of the deceased husband and also obtained compassionate appointment for petitioner no.1. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to persuade this Court that petitioner no.2 is, in fact, the first wife and the informant is the second. He further relied upon certain departmental enquiry reports releasing the dues of the deceased husband in favour of petitioner no.2, satisfied that she was the first wife. Additionally certain certificate of the Mukhiya etc. in support of being the first wife was sought to be also relied upon. This Court is satisfied that the allegations as made are fit to go to trial. Whatsoever has been urged on behalf of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are basically their defence to be tested in trial. Any alleged compromise petition filed on behalf of parties before the court below is of no relevance, if the compromise petition has failed to find confirmation before acceptance by the Court. This Court, therefore, finds no justification to interfere with the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The application is dismissed with regard to petitioner nos. 1 and 2. Insofar as petitioner no.3 is concerned, in absence of any reference to him in the body of the 3 complaint, much less any overtact attributed to him, this Court is satisfied that there is no justification to expose him to the rigours of a criminal trial. The application is, therefore, allowed only insofar as petitioner no.3 is concerned and the entire proceedings against him in connection with Kishanpur P.S. Case No. 89 of 2005, G.R. Case No. 733 of 2005, pending before S.D.J.M., Supaul, is hereby quashed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)