CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.21882 OF 1999 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1. RAJO SINGH, SON OF DWARIKA SINGH 2. KAMATA PRASAD SINGH, SON OF NARSINGH SINGH 3. BRIJNANDAN SINGH @ BIRJU SINGH, SON OF NARSINGH SINGH 4. VIMAL KISHORE SINGH, SON OF RAJO SINGH 5. RAM SAKAL SINGH, SON OF CHAMRU SINGH 6. UMA SHANKAR SINGH, SON OF RAMSAKAL SINGH ALL RESIDENTS OF PANDARAK SHIVALA PAR, P.S. PANDARAK, DISTRICT PATNA. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MADHUSUDAN SINGH, SON OF LATE BILAT SINGH RESIDENT OF PANDARAK SHIVALA PAR, P.S. PANDARAK, DISTRICT PATNA. ----------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT/OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioners :- Mr. Madan Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Advocate For O.P. No. 2 :- None For the State :- Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, A.P.P. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S.A. Khan, J. In this case, it appears that the dispute is of civil nature relating to Plot No. 6398. However, criminal cases are being filed by the parties, staking a claim over the land in question. There was a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. which was disposed of on 14.10.1978. Learned counsel for the petitioners 2 submits that Madhusudan Singh (Opposite Party No. 2) complainant/informant has died during the pendency of this case. In view of the aforesaid fact, this court has no way of knowing whether the case still exists in the Court below. The matter is of 1993 and if no steps have been taken by the complainant or his heirs in the matter, it would obviously lead to its own conclusion. In the circumstances, the Lower Court may peruse the records and find whether any person is pursuing this case or not and determine whether Madhusudan Singh and Naresingh Singh, the two warring persons are alive or are dead. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that it appears that matters have now been compromised between the parties. The fact remains that there is a dispute with respect to possession of Plot No. 6398 which cannot be decided by this Court. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Patna High Court, 30th of November, 2010 N.A.F.R./Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)