Dr. Dhananjay Singh @ Paritosh Kumar @ Brajesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11462 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2018 Thana- RAJPUR District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.

DR. DHANANJAY SINGH @ PARITOSH KUMAR @ BRAJESH KUMAR Son of Shri Rambachan Singh Resident of Village- Vad Joga, P.S.- Nokha, District- Rohtas.

2.

Indu Kumari Wife of Dr. Dhananjay Singh @ Pariotsh Kumar @ Brajesh Kumar Resident of Village- Vad Joga, P.S.- Nokha, District- Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

Sanjay Mahto Son of Late Rajaram Mahto Resident of Village- Rajpur Ward No. 6, P.S.- Rajpur, District- Rohtas.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bhola Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pramod Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 25-04-2023 Heard the parties.

This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.01.2022 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj, Rohtas in connection with Rajpur P.S. Case No. 10 of 2018 by which learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 304, 315 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have settled their dispute vide Compromise Petition as contained in Annexure- 6 and the opposite party no. 2 has filed the compromise petition and withdrawal petition in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11462 of 2022(2) dt.25-04-2023 2/2 the Court below.

In view of the aforesaid fact, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the case pending in Court and also in the Court below.

Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to consider the truthfulness of the compromise petition from the O.P. No. 2 and in case the O.P. No. 2 supports the compromise petition, the proceeding should be dropped against the persons with whom he has entered into compromise. If the compromise petition is not supported by the O.P. No. 2 then appropriate order be passed. The Court below must pass an order on the compromise petition within 15 days from the date of communication of a receipt of this order.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this application is disposed of.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Harsh/ U T