CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7218 OF 2000 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. ---- 1. RAM SWARATH MISHRA SON OF LATE RAM KRIPAL MISHRA 2. ANIBHUTI MISHRA SON OF LATE CHATURBHUJ MISHRA 3. RAJ KANT MISHRA SON OF LATE LAXMI MISHRA ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SURAULI, P.S. BIBHUTIPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. 4. RAJESHWAR PRASAD SON OF LATE RAGHO RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAGHOPUR, P.S. BIBHUTIPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAM KUMAR MISHRA SON OF LATE VIDYA MISHRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SUGAULI, P.S. BIBHUTIPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---- For the Petitioners : Mr. S.N.P. Sinha, Sr.Adv. For O.P. No.2 : Mrs.Renu Jha, Adv. For the State : Mrs.Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---- Rakesh Kumar,J. Learned counsel for the petitioners files supplementary affidavit in compliance with the earlier direction of this Court. Keep it on record. 2. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in C.R. Case No.471 of 1999 as well as order of cognizance dated 21.1.2000 passed by the Additional 2 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, whereby cognizance of offences under Sections 467, 468, 469, 471, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code was taken. 3. Without going into the merit of the case, since in the present case on 13.7.2010, stand was taken by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that compromise in between the parties had already arisen, which was refuted by Smt. Indu Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, the case was adjourned by its order dated 13.7.2010 for filing affidavits on behalf of both the parties. In compliance with the order, the petitioners have filed a supplementary affidavit reiterating the stand that compromise in between the parties had already taken place. On the contrary, the opposite party no.2 has filed a counter affidavit wherein specifically, it has been denied. It was asserted that no compromise in between the parties had taken place in the present case. 4. In view of the piquant situation, which has arisen in the present case, there is no requirement to pass any positive order 3 in the present case and, accordingly, the court feels that the issue regarding compromise can be examined well by the concerned court where the complaint case is pending. Accordingly, the case is remitted back to the concerned court in Complaint Case No.471 of 1999. It would be up to the learned court below to hear and decide the dispute. 5. In view of disposal of the present petition, interim order of stay dated 4.12.2000 stands automatically vacated. 6. With above observation and direction, the petition stands disposed of. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 3.8.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H.