IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30167 of 2007 1. Anil Kumar, Son of Late Govind Das. 2. Arvind Kumar, Son of Late Govind Das. 3. Nirmala Devi, Wife of Anil Kumar. 4. Raju Kumar, Son of Anil Kumar. 5. Munni Kumari, Daughter of Anil Kumar. 6. Ritu Devi, Wife of Arvind Kumar. 7. Mahanu Kumari, Daughter of Anil Kumar. All residents of Mohalla Guzari Bazar, Police Station Khajekalan, Patna City and District Patna. ------ Petitioners Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2. Ashok Kumar, Son of Late Govind Das, Resident of Mohalla Guzari Bazar, Police Station Khajekalan, Patna City, District Patna. ------- Opposite Parties ----------- 12 30.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. At long last, the good sense have prevailed upon the brothers of the same family and they have now sought to resolve their differences with the following terms and conditions:- 1(1) That the petitioner No.2, Arvind Kumar agrees that the two storied house situated in Guzari Bazar, P.S. Khajekalan, District Patna and which was gifted to him alone by his father’s sister and of which he is the exclusive owner shall now be owned and shared by him with his four brothers. The area in the house which shall be enjoyed by each brother to the exclusion of others has been marked by a broad line and given the numbers 1, 2, 3, 2 4 and 5. It is agreed that “1” will belong to Anil Kumar, “2” to Ashok Kumar, “3” to Awadh Kumar, “4” to Arvind Kumar and “5” to Anup Kumar. Similarly, all the five brothers would enjoy similar areas, immediately over their area in ground floor, on the first floor. 2. That the four brothers have also agreed to divide amongst themselves the house and the land attached thereto at their ancestral home in village- Moozaganj, vis- Aliganj, P.S. Sikendra, District- Jamui in such a manner as shown in the map so that the area marked “1” will go to Anil Kumar, “2” to Ashok Kumar, “3” to Awadh Kumar, “4” to Arvind kumar and “5” to Anup Kumar. 3. That all the brothers agreed that none of them shall sell their share in the residential house at Patna to any stranger outside the family. Further, in case, any of the brothers proposes or wants to sell his share, he shall first offer it to the other brothers and if more than one brother in agreeable to purchase the share, the younger would have preference. 4. That all the brothers agree that the criminal cases pending amongst them i.e. (i) Kajekalan P.S. Case No. 130 of 2005 filed by Ashok Kumar (ii) Kajekalan P.S. Case No. 131 of 2005 filed by Arvind Kumar and (iii) Complaint Case No. 384 of 3 2008 filed by Mamta Devi, wife of Anup Kumar and Khasekalan P.S. 100/2007 filed by Mamta Devi shall all be withdrawn and none of the parties to the compromise or their wives and their family members are interested in proceeding with the same. 5. That the brother expect and hope that no further litigation would crop-up amongst them and their amicable settlement. 6. That the terms of this compromise, specially clause No.2 which related to Arvind Kumar giving share in the house at Patna to the other four brothers, shall not come into effect in case of violation of any of the terms of this compromise.” As is now clear from reading of the aforementioned terms and conditions, the parties have agreed to also withdraw the criminal cases and therefore, the present criminal case being one of them is also to be deemed to have been withdrawn by the opposite party no.2 of this case, who is the beneficiary under the agreement. It is made clear that the agreement on account of withdrawal of this case has come into force from today itself and therefore, now Clause-6 of the agreement as 4 quoted above will now have no meaning. That being so, the criminal prosecution against the petitioners in this case has become redundant and the same is directed to be closed. This application is accordingly allowed with the aforementioned observations and directions. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)