CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.28539 OF 2004 With Cr.Misc. No.24122 oF 2000 ******* In the matter of applications under Section 482 Of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ******* 1. SANGEET KUMAR VERMA 2. ROOP SHREE RANI ------------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. LAXAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH @ PAPPU SINGH -------------- OPP.PARTRIES ******* For the Petitioners : M/s Ashwini Kumar Singh & Pankaj Kumar Das For Opp.Party no.2 : Mr. Jitendra Kr. Singh For the State : Mr. R.B. Roy ‘Raman’ APP ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA Akhilesh Chandra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. Earlier on 02nd August, 2010 hearing of Cr.Misc. no. 28539 of 2004 had commenced and in the midst it was felt essential that the connected case, that 2 is, Cr.Misc. no. 24122 of 2000 between the parties, be also heard and disposed of alongwith this case. Accordingly, order was passed and as such both the connected cases were listed for hearing with each other. 3. Learned counsel representing the opposite party in the present case, submitted that he is not engaged by the petitioner in Cr.Misc. no. 24122 of 2000 but he has sent due information to the lawyer representing him in the court below. Inspite of case Cr.Misc. no. 24122 of 200 being listed more than two days learned counsel representing the opposite party no.2 by holding power has not turned. Taking into consideration all such aspects and the matter being inter- connected and in between the parties, considering representation of opposite party no.2 through the counsel engaged in the case of Cr.Misc. no. 28539 of 2004, both the cases are being disposed of by this composite order. Admittedly, dispute between the parties centers round with a piece of land measuring 3 kathas 6 ¾ dhurs, plot no. 622/623 containing some structures and there was a proceeding under Sections 3 144 and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which has been disposed of on compromise vide Annexure-7. 4. It is also admitted position that one Prem Lal Sah was the owner of the land in question besides others and he transferred the same in favour of his sons and wife. Subsequently, he also executed a deed in favour of Kameshwar Prasad Singh, father of opposite party no.2. This was the root cause behind the litigation. Wife of Prem Lal Sah by virtue of transfer in her favour sold the land to Lalita Devi through whom the petitioner no.2 had purchased. It is also undisputed and averred in Annexure-7 that petitioner no.2 transferred the land to one Subhadra Devi wife of Dr.Binay Kumar Heera and also executed power of attorney in favour of Dr. Heera who executed some sale deed in favour of Ranjan Raju, Sanjay Sanju and Niranjan Narayan Yadav. Opposite party no.2 who was second party therein 145 proceeding also executed an Ekrarnama in favour of Subhadra Devi, wife of Dr.Heera and, ultimately, the parties accepted the transfer in favour of Subhadra Devi and Binay Kumar 4 Heera and, accordingly, proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was disposed of on the basis of compromise petition dated 28.11.2001 vide order dated 04.12.2001. 5. In between opposite party no.2 had filed Complaint Case no.975 of 1997 against the two petitioners here alleging some sort of assault and damage to the construction over the land, referred to above. On the basis of the Complaint Petition Sadar P.S. Case no. 4 of 1998 was instituted . After investigation, Police submitted final form which was accepted but on basis of complaint filed therein the case proceeded, cognizance for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 379, 427, 428 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code was taken in C.R. no. 1045 of 1998 vide order dated 16.11.1999 giving rise to Cr.Misc. no.24122 of 2000. Subsequently, another complaint case was filed on 09.05.2001 vice opposite party no.2 against seven persons including present petitioners at serial no.6 and 7 and other tranferees of petitioner no.2 named above, such as Dr. Binay Kumar Heera, his wife Subhadra 5 Devi, Ranjan Raju, Sanjay Sanju and Niranjan Narayan Yadav alleging some sort of assault during inspection of subject matter of the proceeding, referred to above, on 8.5.2001 wherein by impugned order dated 30.6.2001 cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code giving rise to Cr.Rev. no. 582 of 2001 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, where vide order dated 04.12.2002 the revision was dismissed which is under challenge in the instant case. 6. Before the court below one petition of compromise was also filed on 27.11.2001 under signatures of the complainant and accused. But, since the matter was pending before the revisional court no order was passed. 7. Both these applications have been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of respective orders taking cognizance by the court below and order of revisional court in this application of 2004. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners 6 vehemently contended that they are the rightful owner of the land in question and in possession of the respective deeds where though it is alleged by opposite party no.2, that some occurrence in the manner stated in respect of complaint took place but, in fact, nothing happened and just in order to put pressures upon the petitioners, who are bonafide purchasers, the cases were filed. Ultimately, who had to part with the usufruct of the purchase with other and now the opposite party conceded their interest by filing compromise petitions in respective cases under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and even in the subsequent criminal case was the order taking cognizance and further proceeding of the cases deserves to be quashed. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also concedes to the prayer made by the petitioners. However, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 on the basis of paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit submitted that though there was a compromise between the parties but matter has not been finally settled and the compromise petition has not been made operative but at 7 the same time, on queries of the court, concedes that proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has already been decided on the basis of compromise and with respect to subject matter possession of the persons named at serial no.1 to 5 in the subsequent complaint case has already been declared on the basis of the compromise and no steps have been taken by opposite party no.2 to get rid of such decision. On basis of such submission the learned counsel further, after initial hesitation, concedes that in face of such development and opposite party admitting possession of and purchase in favour of the petitioners with respect to the subject matter of the proceeding much before the dates of alleged occurrence in both the cases in fact, no fruitful result will come if the proceedings are permitted to continue. 10. In face of facts and circumstances, discussed above, taking into consideration that both the cases now falls under more than one criteria as prescribed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal; AIR 1992 SC 604, followed 8 in subsequent decisions of the Apex Court. Further continuance of either of the two proceedings which are subject matter of both the cases shall nothing but abuse of process of law and sheer wastage of precious judicial time. In the result, both the applications stands allowed and the proceedings under challenge before the court below are hereby quashed. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) Patna High Court, The 13th August, 2010. AAhmad/(NAFR).