IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.105 of 2008 SHYAM SUNDER MAHESHWARI @ PERIAL @ SHYAM SUNDER MAHESWARI, S/O LATE SRI NARAYAN MAHESWARI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE THAKURGANJ MARKET, P.S. THAKURGANJ, DISTRICT KISHANGANJ .. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUBINOY SEKHAR MOITRA, S/O LATE PANCHANAN MOITRA, RESIDENT OF PLOT NO. 462, DABGRAM COLONY NO. 1, P.O. RABINDRA SARANI, SILIGURI – 6, P.S. SILLIGURI, DISTRICT DARJELING .. OPPOSITE PARTIES With Cr. Misc. No.38284 of 2006 SUMITA MOITRA, W/O SUBINAY SHEKHAR MOITRA, RESIDENT OF PLOT NO. 462, DEBGRAM COLONY NO. 1, P.S. SILLIGURI, DISTRICT DARJEELING (WEST BENGAL) .. PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHYAM SUNDAR MAHESHWARI, S/O LATE SATYANARAYAN MAHESHWARI, RESIDENT OF THAKURGANJ MARKET, SHIV MANDIR ROAD, P.S. THAKURGANJ, DISTRICT KISHANGANJ .. OPPOSITE PARTIES **** /3/ 30.04.2010 Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. Both these applications are being heard together as both the parties are in agreement that both the cases be disposed off as now they have no grievance one against other. 3. It appears that a civil litigation between the parties dragged them for the criminal litigation. Cr. Misc. No. 2 105 of 2008 has been filed for quashing the order, dated 06.12.2007, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kishanganj, in Criminal Revision No. 211 of 2006 affirming the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj, in Complaint Case No. C1370 of 2005 in which it has been alleged that the accused has filed a Complaint Case No. (C)884 of 2004 alleging therein that there was agreement to sell of the land bearing plot no. 4416(P) and 4418(P) with the complainant and his wife for a consideration amount of Rs.2.5 lacs and Rs.51,000/- was paid in three installments. However, there was an agreement to pay the amount within six months, but, the complainant and his wife did not took the amount and after some times claimed rupees four lacs as the consideration money for the land. However, subsequently an eviction suit filed and then the matter compromised between the parties for a consideration of rupees five lacs and rupees five lacs was paid and even the sale deed executed. However, after the execution of the sale deed the accused did not withdraw the criminal case, as per the agreement between the parties, and instrumental in getting the warrant of arrest issued against the wife and threatened to pay back rupees five lacs, which had been given as consideration money and, 3 hence, it was alleged that by these acts the wife of the complainant has illegally been prosecuted under Sections 384, 406 and 420 of the Penal Code. However, in the Complaint Case No. C884 of 2004, which accused no. 2 of Cr. Misc. No. 38284 of 2006 has filed, cognizance has been taken. However, in the complaint case it was alleged, as mentioned above, that agreement made between the parties for sale and the parties deviated from the agreement and for breach of agreement criminal cases have been filed. However, both the cases appear to be a civil litigation instead of going for civil litigation the parties proceeded for criminal litigation. However, between the parties have compromised the case and none has grievance. 4. Having regard to the facts of both the case, it appears that it is a civil litigation regarding the contract for sale and, hence, the impugned orders in both the cases are hereby set aside and the applications are allowed. S.A. ( Gopal Prasad, J. )