HARI DAS GHOSH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of valid service of notice, no body appears for opposite party no. 2.

(2.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 3.4.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj in Complaint Case No. 867C of 2001, whereby cognizance has been taken against petitioners under Sections 323, 341, 406 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) CASE of the petitioners is that the legal notice was replied on behalf of the petitioners, where they have said that the complainant was not ready to pay the rest of the amount and therefore sale deed was not being executed. Reply on behalf of the petitioners to the legal notice is contained in Annexure -3 to this application. It is said that thereafter the complainant filed title suit claiming the property. The title suit was thereafter compromised. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that now the complainant has paid the entire consideration amount to the petitioners and the petitioners have registered the land in favour of the complainant. A compromise petition has been filed in the complaint case dated 25.1.2007 wherein both the parties have submitted that they have compromised the matter and they do not want to proceed with the case. Certified copy of the said compromise petition has been produced by learned counsel for the petitioners for perusal by Court.