IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.17047 of 2009 Prabhu Prasad Arya & Ors Versus State Of Bihar & Anr --------- For the petitioners: Mr C.M.Chaurasia, Advocate For the Opposite party no.2 : Mr Subroteswar De, Advocate --------- 8 18.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to make necessary correction in the prayer portion of the petition. Permission is accorded and learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make necessary correction in the prayer portion of the petition in course of the day. This petition under section 482 of the Cr. P.C has been filed against the order dated 24.2.2009 passed in Complaint case no.1664C of 2002 by Sri Umesh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna by which and whereunder he rejected the petition dated 10.6.2008 filed on behalf of the petitioners under section 245 of the Cr. P.C and directed the petitioners to appear physically for framing charge. Being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the above stated impugned order, petitioners preferred this criminal miscellaneous case under section 482 of the Cr.P.C with prayer to quash the impugned order dated 24.2.2009. The brief facts of the case is that opposite party no.2, namely, Gita Kumari, filed Complaint case no.1664C/2002 against the petitioners and in the aforesaid complaint case, after due enquiry - 2 - prima facie case under sections 323, 504 and 498A of the IPC was found true. Subsequently, after appearance of the petitioners, learned court below fixed the case for hearing on the point of framing of the charge and after that petition under section 245 of the Cr. P.C was filed but the aforesaid petition was rejected by the learned court below passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are separate from opposite party no.2 and her husband and when the aforesaid facts were placed before this court, this court directed the Superintendent of Police, Patna as well as Superintendent of Police West Champaran, Bettiah to ascertain the correctness of the aforesaid submission and subsequently, police submitted report in respect of family arrangement. It is further pointed out by him that on 11.7.2011, a grievance on behalf of opposite party no.2 was raised before this court to this effect she be allowed to reside in the property at Narkatiyaganj which has been apportioned to her and on the aforesaid grievance, petitioners made no objection and the matter was settled on the above stated date i.e. 11.7.2011 and this court observed that none of the parties will disturb each other and parties are ready to file compromise petition before this court. It is further contended by him that on 26.7.2011, opposite party no.2 came before this court with a new grievance and stated that one more room be allotted to her at first floor of the house of the parties. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that family arrangement was made in writing on 10.7.2002 before - 3 - filing of Complaint case no.1664C/2002 and in above stated family arrangement the schedule III was allotted to the husband of opposite party no.2 whereas other portions of the house were allotted to other family members and, therefore, it is not possible to give one more room to opposite party no.2. Although, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 initially, insisted for allotment of one additional room to opposite party no.2 but in course of hearing, he submitted that if opposite party no.2 is permitted to install hand pump and fix a door within the area allotted to her husband, she has no grievance against the petitioners and she would not continue the Complaint case no.1664C/2002. Although the impugned order is revisable order but since both parties have already ended their disputes with happy note of compromise, in my view, it would be an abuse of process of the law to permit continuance of the proceeding of Complaint case no.1664C/2002. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order dated 24.2.2009 passed in Complaint case no.1664C of 2002 by Sri Umesh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna is, hereby, quashed and subsequently, entire prosecution of petitioners in Complaint case no.1664C of 2002 in respect of the petitioners only is, hereby, quashed. It is made clear that opposite party no.2 may install hand pumps, door etc. within the area allotted to her husband vide family arrangement dated 10.7.2002 and the petitioners shall not make any - 4 - interference into the affairs of opposite party no.2, if she makes constructions within the above stated area. Accordingly, this petition is disposed off. Shahid ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)