1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL  NO. 1050  OF 2002

RANJIT KUMAR DAS AND ORS. ... APPELLANT(S) :VERSUS:

STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R This appeal is directed against the order dated  

14.3.2002  in  Criminal  Miscellaneous  No.28348/2000  passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of  Judicature at Patna. This order was passed by the High  Court in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  for  quashing  the  criminal  complaint.  

The learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court  observed as under:

“Civil and criminal remedies on the same  set  of  facts  can  be  available  but  in  the  circumstances of a case, if it is found that  only  civil  remedy  is  available,  no  criminal  case would lie. Criminal and civil remedies are  not exclusive or co-extensive. From a perusal

2

of the complaint petition and statement of the  complainant on solemn affirmation, it cannot be  said that the ingredients of criminal offence  have not been  made out, the only exception  being allegation relating to Sunetra Kumar Das.  

In  view  of  the  aforesaid,  this  application is partly allowed and the impugned  order  and  criminal  proceeding  against  the  petitioner Sunetra Kumar Das is quashed by the  High Court. In so far as other petitioners are  concerned, this petition is dismissed.”        

The appellants Ranjit Kumar Das, Chhabi Das and  Pawan Kumar Jha have approached this Court for quashing  the judgment and order of the Patna High Court.  During  the pendency of this matter, the parties have filed a  joint  compromise  petition  which  is  signed  by  the  learned counsel for the parties and all the appellants  Ranjit  Kumar  Das,  Chhabi  Das,  Pawan  Kumar  Jha  and  respondent  No.2  -  Rajendra  Prasad  Choudhary  and  respondent  No.3  –  Narmada  Devi.  A  joint  Memo  of  Compromise is also annexed to the said petition. The  joint Memo of Compromise be taken on record.     

In the compromise application, it is mentioned  that the appellants have agreed to give up their title,  rights and interest in the house situated at Village

3

Mouza  Dhouni,  Khata  No.  26,  Khasra  No.  280,  Thana  No.199, Village Dhauni, P.O. & P.S. Tarapur, District  Mnger,  Bihar,  admeasuring  9  Dhoor  in  favour  of  respondent NO.3 who is the wife of respondent No.2.

The appellants executed a registered Power of  Attorney  in  favour  of  respondent  No.3  on  6.8.2009  giving rights to execute registered sale deed in favour  of respondent No.2. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have agreed  to withdraw all pending civil and criminal proceedings  filed by them against the appellants. The details of  the pending proceedings as given in para are as under:  

(a) Criminal Complaint Case No. 548 of 1998 in  the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,  Bhagalpur; (b) Money Suit No. 6 of 1999 in the Court of Sub  Judge IV, Bhagalpur;  and all proceedings, if any, arising therefrom.     The parties are close relations and the dispute  

between them is essentially of a civil nature. Learned  counsel for the State of Bihar also has no objection to  the said compromise being accepted.  

We,  on  consideration  of  the  totality  of  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case,  accept  the  compromise which has been agreed to and signed by the

4

parties.    

In  this  view  of  the  matter,  this  appeal  is  disposed of in terms of the memo of compromise.     

....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

....................J   (B.S. CHAUHAN) NEW DELHI, SEPEMBER 3, 2009.