Patna High CourtCR. MISC./20565/2014disposed

Raj Kishore Chaudhary And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2017-06-23Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.20565 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -395 Year- 2009 Thana -HAJIPUR SADAR DistrictVAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ======================================================

1. Raj Kishore Chaudhary S/o Late Babu Lal Chaudhary

2. Diwakar Kumar S/o Raj Kishore Chaudhary

3. Sundar Devi W/o Raj Kishore Choudhary

4. Manikant Choudhary @ Mani Kant Kumar S/o Raj Kishore Chaudhary All 1 to 4 are Resident of Village Mangurahi, P.S. Ganga Bridge, District Vaishali.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anirudh Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Suresh Pd.Singh (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 23-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners highlights the technical point in the order of taking cognizance, but he ultimately concedes that there is case and counter case by both sides and they have sustained injuries.

In view of the above fact, the technical point in the order may not help the petitioners. Ultimately, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners and the informant are the neighbours and there is possibility of compromise between the parties and he will advise his client to explore the possibility of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20565 of 2014 (2) dt.23-06-2017 2/2 compromise between them.

Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that he would approach the informant of the case with the proposal to settle their controversy outside the Court and enter into the compromise in both the cases i.e. case and counter case. In the aforesaid backdrop of the fact, learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to withdraw this application. It is expected that if such compromise application is filed in the court below, the court below will consider such compromise application pragmatically for settlement of the dispute between the parties instead of going into the technicality of law.

With the above observation, this application is disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Mahesh/- U T