IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45173 of 2008 1) Narendra Nath Mishra, son of Late Nilambar Mishra, 2) Sunil Kumar Mishra, son of Shri Narendra Nath Mishra, village Gandhwar, PS Sakari, District Madhubani – Petitioners. Vs. The State of Bihar. 2 6.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners have challenged the order, dated 22.8.2008 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC III, Patna in Cr. Revision No. 181/2008 / 34/2008 by which the order taking cognizance passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 552©/2007 has been affirmed. From the facts of the case it appears that a case was filed by the petitioners against the builder alleging therein that he has not fulfilled the conditions with respect to construction of flats which were to be made by the builder and handed over to the petitioners as they had purchased the flat. Shastrinagar PS case No. 30/2007 filed by petitioner Narendra Mishra ended up in compromise vide Annexure 10 and according to which the builder had to complete the construction within a specified time and provide facilities as provided under the Act. It is alleged by the petitioners that in fact the builder did not complete the work. On the other hand, the husband of Usha Sharma, the Managing Director of Vaishnavi Architect & Engineering Private Limited filed Complaint Case No. 552©/2007 in which it is alleged 2 that certain amount of money has not been paid by the petitioners. From the facts aforesaid it appears that there is a dispute between the parties with respect to payment for the flats purchased by the petitioners whereas the petitioners are aggrieved by non- performance of part of the contract between Usha Sharma and Sunil Kumar Mishra. Learned counsel further submits that Anil Kumar Sharma has passed away during the pendency of the complaint petition and no steps have been taken to substitute his heirs and as such the court below ought not take any further steps for proceeding with the case. In a case of this nature it would be proper for the court below to consider the case and the counter case together, on an application being filed in that regard by either party. Accordingly, it is directed that the court below should hear the matter together, if a petition is filed by any one of the parties. The Court below may also consider whether any criminal offence is made out in the facts of this case, as it is submitted that the dispute is of a civil nature at the stage of framing of charges. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)