JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Sumeet Gadodia and Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Md. Azeemuddin, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. In both the cases, same complaint case is the subject matter and that is why both the petitions have been heard together with consent of the parties. 3. In Cr.M.P. No.2541 of 2016, the prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 03.10.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Revision No.201 of 2016 as well as the order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No.308 of 2011, whereby, the prayer of the petitioner for discharge has been dismissed, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 4. In Cr.M.P. No.2622 of 2017, the prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 24.08.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No.308 of 2011, whereby, the joint compromise petition filed by the petitioners has been rejected considering that the alleged sections do not fall within the ambit of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which is presently pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad. 5. The complaint case was filed by opposite party no.2 alleging therein that opposite party no.2 claimed to be Power of Attorney holder of Rabindra Nath Paul and others, who are owners of lands described in Para no.2 of the complaint petition. It was further alleged that a Bayanapatra was issued by opposite party no.2 on behalf of land owners on receipt of Rs.11 Lakh from the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No.2541 of 2016 through cheque and thereafter, on 05.09.2008, an agreement was executed between the parties for sale of 85.51 acres of land. It has been stated in para-9 of the complaint petition that the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No.2541 of 2016 filed Title Suit No.92 of 2010 for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement and Bayanapatra. It was also alleged that opposite party no.2 found that a word “Or” has been inserted in Clause-3 at page 9 of the agreement and, therefore, they have committed such offence. 6. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia assisted by Mr. It was also alleged that opposite party no.2 found that a word “Or” has been inserted in Clause-3 at page 9 of the agreement and, therefore, they have committed such offence. 6. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia assisted by Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No.2541 of 2016 submits that the petitioners are purchasers of the land in question and opposite party no.2 is the Power of Attorney holder. He further submits that on the ground of interpolation in the agreement, the complaint case has been filed by opposite party no.2 in which the cognizance has been taken. He also submits that the dispute in question was the subject matter in Title Suit No.92 of 2010, which was disposed of on joint compromise petition and decree in terms of joint compromise petition was drawn and in view of the compromise, the petitioners have been declared legal owners of the land in question. He further submits that based on decree, a joint compromise petition was filed in the learned court and the learned court has rejected the petition on the ground that the alleged sections do not fall within the ambit of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and also considering that compromise has not been taken place between the petitioners and opposite party no.2, which is the subject matter in Cr.M.P. No.2622 of 2017. He further submits that the compromise in the said Title Suit was also the subject matter in First Appeal No. 43 of 2012 before the High Court and the High Court has also accepted the compromise. 7. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that there is direct allegation of interpolation of the agreement and in that view of the matter, this Court may not interfere at this stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. Mr. Md. Azeemuddin, learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders and this Court may not interfere at this stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. This Court has perused the materials on the record and considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and finds that admittedly the complaint case has been filed alleging therein that the petitioners have interpolated with the agreement. In Title Suit No.92 of 2010, which was the subject matter of the agreement, the compromise has been entered between the parties. In Title Suit No.92 of 2010, which was the subject matter of the agreement, the compromise has been entered between the parties. It is well settled that finding in the civil suit are binding in criminal case on the same facts, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rukmini Narvekarv.Vijaya Satardekar , reported in (2008) 14 SCC 1 . Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said judgment are quoted herein below: “12. Before dealing with these submissions, we may point out that while there were certain rulings of two-Judge Benches of this Court, which had held that the findings in a civil suit are binding in a criminal case on the same facts but not vice versa, this view appears to have been watered down somewhat in the subsequent decisions of the larger Benches of this Court e.g. the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah as well as the decision of the three-Judge Bench in K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector of Police. 13. The law as to when criminal proceedings can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution has been laid down by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. This decision has been followed subsequently by a series of decisions e.g. Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate, Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar, etc.” 10. Moreover, the said joint compromise petition has also been upheld by this Court in First Appeal No.43 of 2012. To allow the proceeding to continue in Cr.M.P. No.2541 of 2016, will amount to abuse of the process of law. Opposite party no.2 has accepted the fact of the compromise. Thus to allow the proceedings to continue in Cr.M.P. No.2622 of 2017 will also amount to abuse of the process of law. To allow the proceeding to continue in Cr.M.P. No.2541 of 2016, will amount to abuse of the process of law. Opposite party no.2 has accepted the fact of the compromise. Thus to allow the proceedings to continue in Cr.M.P. No.2622 of 2017 will also amount to abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the order dated 03.10.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Revision No.201 of 2016 as well as the order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No.308 of 2011, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad as well as the order dated 24.08.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No.308 of 2011, which is presently pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad are, hereby, quashed. 11. Consequently, these petitions stand allowed and disposed of. 12. Interim relief, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated.