Sanjay Kumar Singh v. East Kannulal Road, Mithapur
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Patna are hereby set aside and both the petitions stand allowed
Judgment
The State Of Bihar 2. Chintamani Devi, wife of Sri Jay Bahadur Singh resident of Village- Kulhariya, P.S.- Koilwar, Distt.- Bhojpur, presently residing at Hari Niwas, Kannulal Road, Mithapur, P.S.- Jakanpur, Distt.- Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== With Criminal Miscellaneous No.39197 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Om Prakash Singh , son of Jai Bahadur Singh, resident of Hari Niwas, Mohalla- East Kanulal Road, Mithapur, P.S. Jakkanpur, District-Patna 2. Ran Vijay Singh, son of Late Shri Niwas Singh, resident of Flat No.148, Block 18, Rajendra Nagar, P.S. Kadamkuan, District-Patna
Jai Bahadur Singh, Son of Late Ramayan Sharan Singh, resident of Hari Niwas , Mohalla- East Kanulal Road, Mithapur, P.S. Jakkanpur, District-Patna Versus .... .... Petitioner/s
1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sanjay Kumar Singh, son of Late Vishwanath Singh, resident of Mohalla- Kanulal Road, Mithapur, P.S. Jakkanpur, District-Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ---------------------- 5 01-08-2012 Heard the parties. Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in the first case (i.e.Cr.Misc. No.4643 of 2010) and Smt. Meera Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners in the second case (i.e. Cr. Misc. No.39197 of 2009) have submitted that the dispute 2 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4643 of 2010 (5) dt.01-08-2012 in between the parties has already been settled outside the court and the complainants of both the cases are not at all interested to further pursue the matter. In the first case, complaint was filed by the wife of petitioner no.3 of Cr.Misc. No.39197 of 2009 and in the second case, petitioner Sanjay Kumar Singh of Cr.Misc.
No.4643 of 2010 is complainant. In the second case, i.e. Cr. Misc. No.39197 of 2009, the petitioner of first case is the complainant. In between the parties, litigations were going on. However, during the pendency of both cases, good sense prevailed in between the parties and, as such, they have filed compromise petition. In the first case i.e. Cr. Misc. No.4643 of 2010, a compromise petition has been filed duly signed by the complainants of both the cases. In paragraph-4 of the compromise petition, it has been indicated that both the parties have settled their dispute outside the court and they do not want to further proceed with the cases i.e. (i) Complaint Case No.1496 (C) of 2009 pending in the court of Sri Ashutosh Khetan, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna (ii) Complaint Case No.1226 ( C) of 2009, pending in the court of Smt. Niharika Kumari, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna They have also mentioned one Consumer Case No.80 of 2010 , which is pending in the court of District Consumer Forum, Patna.
Operative part
3 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4643 of 2010 (5) dt.01-08-2012 So for as complaint cases are concerned, this Court, for the ends of justice, is inclined to pass order for closing the cases in view of the fact that in both the cases, parties have been agreed to settle their dispute outside the Court and keeping in view the nature of accusation in complaint cases, the proceeding in Complaint Case No.1496 ( C) of 2009 pending in the court of Sri Ashutosh Khetan, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna and Complaint Case No.1226 ( C) of 2009 pending in the court of Smt. Niharika Kumari , learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna are hereby set aside and both the petitions stand allowed. In respect of Consumer Case No.80 of 2010, which is pending in the court of District Consumer Forum, Patna, the parties are advised to file appropriate petition before the concerned court. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.