Dina Nath Prasad And ANR v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.35965 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3201 Year- 2011 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA ======================================================
1. Dina Nath Prasad S/O Late Dharam Das Resident Of Village Karorichak, P.S. Phulwarisarif, District Patna.
2. Smt. Babita Devi W/O Dina Nath Prasad Resident Of Village Karorichak, P.S. Phulwarisarif, District Patna. .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar.
2. Ram Ekbal Singh S/O Late Ramchandra Ram Resident Of Village Harnichak, P.O. Anishabad, P.S. Beur, District Patna. .... .... Opposite Partys ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.36020 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3201 Year- 2011 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA ====================================================== Daroga Rai S/O Sukan Rai, Secretary Of Mitra Mandal Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Resident Of Saket Bihar, Mitra Mandal Colony, P.SPhulwarisharif, District=- Patna. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Ram Ekbal Singh S/O Late Ramchandra Ram Resident Of Village Harnichak, P.O- Anishabad, P.S- Beur, District- Patna. .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
(In Cr.Misc. No.35965 of 2013) For the Petitioners : Mr. Md. Faiz Ahmad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. R.B.Rai Raman (App) (In Cr.Misc. No.36020 of 2013) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Faiz Ahmad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. R.B.Rai Raman (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 23-12-2016 Heard respective learned counsel along with learned APP.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35965 of 2013 (3) dt.23-12-2016 2/2 Learned respective counsel have stated that the matter has been amicably sorted out amongst the parties. Because of the fact that further proceeding has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 03.04.2014, on account thereof, they could not file compromise petition before the learned Lower Court. Considering the joint submission having been made on behalf of learned respective counsels, these petitions are disposed of with a direction to the learned lower court to accept the compromise petition as the offence wherein cognizance has been taken happens to be compoundable. The stay so granted vide order dated 03.04.2014 is accordingly recalled. (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.) rinkee/- U T