Raju Raj v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36622 of 2016 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2141 Year-2015 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== Raju Raj, Son of Ram Avtar Prasad, Resident of Mohalla- Bibiganj, Maida Toli, P.S Danapur, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar.
2.
Basu Kumar, son of Sri Dilip Kumar Keshri, resident of 68 GA, Bibiganj, Danapur, P.S. Danapur, District- Patna. At Present resident of 201, Shiv Sadan, Opposite Defence Colony, Danapur, P.S. Danapur, District- Patna. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Md. Fahimuddin, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Nand Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 19-02-2024
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition, as matter has been compromised between the parties.
3. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon annexure-7, having all details of the compromise as arrived between the parties.
4. Factum of aforesaid compromise was also affirmed by learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2. For
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36622 of 2016(5) dt.19-02-2024 2/3 the sake of convenience or to avoid any further confusion, it would be apposite to reproduce the contents of said compromise petition (annexure-7), which was filed before the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna, which is as under:- "In, The Court of Komal Sandyal, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna.
Complaint Case No. 2141 (C) of 2015.
Basu Kumar .......................Complainant.
Versus
Raju Raj and Others .................Accused. The humble joint compromise petition filed on behalf of the complainant; Basu Kumar;
AND Accused namely; 1. Raju Raj Most Respectfully Sheweth:-
1. That with the intervention of common friends and well wishers both the parties have amicably settled their disputes and compromise their case outside the court.
2. That both the parties have reputed businessman and residing at same locality and after compromise good and healthy relation have been restored between the parties.
3. That due to compromise all disputes were resolved between the parties and all dues against each other paid to the complainant by the accused of this case and also to the accused by the complainant of this case and now nothing due against each other.
4. That some other cases i.e. (1) Complaint Case No. 2966 (C) of 2015, (2) Complaint Case No. 1161 (C) of 2015 pending in Patna Civil Court and (3) Complaint Case No. 705 (C) of 2015, (4) Cr. Rev. No. 257 of 2016 both are pending in Danapur Civil Court in which both the parties have also entered into compromise and settled their disputes and token of compromise separate joint compromise petition have also filed in above mentioned case.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36622 of 2016(5) dt.19-02-2024 3/3
5. That no any public policy is involved in this case.
6. That due to compromise complainant does not want to proceed with the case against the accused persons.
7. That in token of compromise both the parties have filed a joint compromise petition before your honour's court.
8. That the contents of this joint compromise petition have been read over and explained to both the parties in simple Hindi and found correct. Both the parties have put their signature/LTI on this compromise petition and their respective lawyer have also put their signature.
It is, therefore, humbly prayed that your honour be pleased to discharge the accused persons in the light of the said compromise.
And for this, both the parties shall every pray;"
5. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid submission qua compromise, present quashing petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) veena/- U T