CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35744 OF 2000 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. ---- 1. ASHA DEVI, WIFE OF RAMESH CHANDRA PANDEY, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – SONAR TOLI, SASARAM, P.S. SASARAM, DISTRICT ROHTAS. AT PRESENT RESIDING WITH HER FATHER HARINANDAN PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE –UB, P.S. OBRA, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. 2. HARINANDAN PANDEY, SON OF LATE BRIJ BHUSHAN PANDEY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-UB, P.S. OBRA, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDEY, R/O MOHALLA SONAR TOLI, SASARAM, P.O. + P.S. SASARAM, DISTT. ROHTAS. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---- For the Petitioners : M/S Sudama Singh, Adv. S.K. Mishra, Adv. For O.P. : M/S Vikram Deo Singh, Adv. Vinod Kumar Seth, 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. Earlier the petition was filed by two petitioners for quashing of an order dated 29.8.2000 passed by Sri R.P. Asthana, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad in G.R. No.1309 of 1999/Tr. No.1057 of 2000. By the said order, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad had taken cognizance of offence under Sections 420, 406, 341, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the 2 pendency of this petition, petitioner no.2 died and as such the case in respect of opposite party no.2 abated. To this effect on 9.8.2010, order was passed by this Court. 2. At the time of hearing, both the counsel i.e. learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, complainant submitted before the court that after filing of the complaint petition, good sense has prevailed between the parties and as such a compromise petition was filed before the court below. It was further submitted that the order of cognizance was stayed by this Court by order dated 4.4.2001 and as such, this Court, instead of remitting back the matter to the concerned court for passing order on compromise petition, may finally dispose of the present proceeding. 3. Keeping in view, subsequent development as well as in view of the assertion made in the F.I.R., the court is satisfied that it would not be appropriate to direct the petitioners to participate in the proceeding before the court below where the 3 complainant had also desired not to pursue the matter. 4. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 29.8.2000 passed by Sri R.P. Asthana, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Aurangabad in G.R. No.1309 of 1999/Tr. No.1057 of 2000 is hereby set aside and petition stands allowed. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 10.8.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H.