Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.32199 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. M/S Deepharma Limited, A company under liquidation through its Erstwhile M.D. having its office at B – 142, Okhala Phase -1, New Delhi – 110020. 2. Mr. V.K. Jain, Son of Late D.D. Jain, Erstwhile M.O. of M/s Deepharma Limited, Residing at B – 142 , Okhala Phase – 1, New Delhi - 110020. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Dr. Veena Lal, W/o Dr. Brij Lal, Son of not known, R/o Arya Kumar Road, Rajendra Nagar, P.S. – Kadamkuan, District – Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Das Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 6 23-04-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Ehteshamuddin, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of entire proceeding in Complaint Case No. 172(C) of 2000, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, instituted for the offence under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, in which, cognizance order has been passed for the offence under [STATUTE] and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32199 of 2008 (6) dt.23-04-2012 2 / 3 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is true that on allegation of dishonour of cheque complaint petition was filed, but during the pendency of the case the entire cheque amount was already paid to the complainant / opposite party no. 2 with her full satisfaction, and thereafter, the opposite party no. 2 had filed a petition vide Annexure - “4” to the petition on 06.11.2006 in the court of the learned Magistrate under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for withdrawal of the case. However, the learned Magistrate on the ground that the case was fixed for appearance, by the order dated 12.12.2006, has dismissed the petition filed by the complainant for withdrawal of the case. In this case by the order dated 06.07.2011, while issuing notice to the opposite party no. 2, this court had directed for staying further proceeding. However, despite valid service of notice, the opposite party no. 2, has preferred not to appear. At the time of hearing it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that after entire payment was made to the complainant and also after dismissal of the petition for withdrawal, the complainant has stopped doing any “pairvi” before the court below In view of the fact that the complainant herself had filed petition for withdrawal, which has been dismissed by the learned Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32199 of 2008 (6) dt.23-04-2012 3 / 3 3 court below, the court is of the opinion, that in such situation where the entire payment has already been made and the complainant had also wished to withdraw the case, no purpose would be served in allowing the proceeding to further proceed. Accordingly, for just decision in the matter and for preventing abuse of the process of court, it is desirable to interfere with the proceeding, and as such, entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 172(C) of 2000, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna, is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. Praful/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 406

Statute Text:
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust. Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.