CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6329 OF 2000 ------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------- RABINDRA PRASAD @ RABINDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA son of late Jagat Narain Prasad, resident of village-Jaisinghpur, Tola-Madhopur, P.S.-Turkolia, Dist.-East Champaran. ..….. ……Petitioner Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Awadh Bihari Pandey son of late Udeshi Pandey, resident of village-Jaisinghpur, P.S.-Turkolia, Dist.-East Champaran. …… …….Opp.Parties. ------ For the petitioner:Mr.Dhananjay Kumar Mr.Sunil Prasad. For the State: Mr. B.P.Singh, A.P.P. For Opp.Party No.2: Mr.Rajendra Narain ------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ------- Rakesh Kumar,J. The sole petitioner in the present case has prayed for quashing of an order dated 4.4.1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Motihari, East Champaran in connection with Complaint Case No.1115 of 1997/Tr. No.810 of 1998. By the said order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal code. While the case was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit annexing therewith a petition of compromise in between the parties. It was submitted by Mr.Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that, during the pendency of this petition, both the parties had agreed to compromise and compromise has arrived in between the parties. It was further submitted that in similar 2 Patna High Court The 30th July,2010 Md.S./NAFR circumstance the opposite party no.2 had earlier filed a separate complaint and in that case also cognizance order was passed which was challenged before this court by filing a petition which was numbered as Cr.Misc. No.3818 of 2004. In that case also compromise in between the parties had arrived and, as such, this court had disposed of the said petition with a direction to the court below to consider the compromise petition filed there and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. In view of the order passed in a similar case and that too in view of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in presence of Mr.Rajendra Narain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, it is necessary to pass similar order in the present case. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the court below to consider the compromise petition filed there and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. (Rakesh Kumar,J.)