Allowed

Narendra Kumar Saurya v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC16 Aug 2017CR. MISC./26728/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the Patna High Court quashed the order taking cognizance dated 02.11.2013 and the emanating criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 441 of 2013 in Muzaffarpur on the ground that the dispute between the parties had been resolved via a settlement agreement mediated by the High Court.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order dated 02.11.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No. 441 of 2013 and the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom.

Narendra Kumar Saurya Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.26728 of 2014

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -441 Year- 2013 Thana -MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictMUZAFFARPUR

¶3

====================================================== Narendra Kumar Saurya, s/o Yaswant Singh, r/o vill- Lasgaripur, PS- Kanti, Dist- Muzaffarpur

¶4

.... .... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Bihar

¶7

Krishna Kumar Prasad Chaudhary, s/o Late Sudhakar Prasad Chaudhary, r/o vill- Kalwari, PS- Kanti, Dist- Muzaffarpur

¶8

.... .... Opposite Party/s

¶9

======================================================

¶10

Appearance :

¶11

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh(App)

¶12

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER

¶13

5 16-08-2017

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 is not present and infact, he was also not present on the earlier date i.e. on 26.07.2017, meaning thereby, that the opposite party no. 2 has lost interest in the case which is apparent from the order being dictated hereinbelow.

¶15

It appears that opposite party no. 2 had filed a complaint case bearing Complaint case no. 441 of 2013 against two accused persons namely Narendra Kr. Shaurya (petitioner) and Yaswant Singh. It was alleged in the complaint petition that the opposite party no. 2 had given a huge sum of money to the father of the petitioner for executing a sale deed, however, the money was misappropriated. The learned Trial Court by an order

¶16

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26728 of 2014 (5) dt.16-08-2017

¶17

2/3

¶18

dated 02.11.2013 had been pleased to issue summons to the petitioner and other accused persons.

¶19

The aforesaid order dated 02.11.2013 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (West) Muzaffarpur is under challenge in the present petition.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his father had also preferred a quashing application bearing Cr. Misc. no. 682 of 2014 and the matter was referred to the Patna High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre whereafter, the dispute has been resolved and an agreement has been arrived into between the parties and then, the father of the petitioner has also paid a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 in full and final settlement of the dispute. It is further submitted that in the light of the said agreement, this Court has been pleased to quash the order taking cognizance dated 02.11.2013 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (West) Muzaffarpur in complaint case no. 441 of 2013. The learned counsel further submits that since the matter has been compromised and the order taking cognizance dated 02.11.2013 has also been quashed, technically, no case remains for adjudication.

¶21

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the matter has been resolved between the

¶22

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26728 of 2014 (5) dt.16-08-2017

¶23

3/3

¶24

parties with the intervention of the Patna High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and upon satisfaction that the settlement amount has been paid to opposite party no. 2, this Court by an order dated 16.11.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. no. 682 of 2014 has been pleased to quash the order taking cognizance dated 02.11.2013 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (West) Muzaffarpur in Complaint case no. 441 of 2013, T.R. no. 3019 of 2013.

¶25

In such view of the matter, nothing remains in the present case, hence, as far as petitioner herein being the son of the aforesaid Yaswant Singh (petitioner of Cr. Misc. no. 682 of 2014) is concerned, I deem it fit and appropriate to quash the order dated 02.11.2013 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (West) Muzaffarpur in Complaint case no. 441 of 2013, T.R. no. 3019 of 2013 as well as the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom, are also set aside.

¶26

The petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J.)

¶28

rinkee/-

¶29

U T

Narendra Kumar Saurya v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Kumar Saurya v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chanchal Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Satyendra Singh @ Ghanshyam Singh Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Aditya Kumar Singh Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Ram Sharan @ Ram Sharan Mahto Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Kailash Pd. Yadav and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Manish Pandit @ Manish Kumar Pandit @ Kanhai Pandit Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.