Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.25144 of 2009 ====================================================== Kishori Lal Chugh @ Kishore Lal Gelaram Chugh, son of Gela Ram Chugh, 401/402, Pleasant View, Plot No.56/57, Sector -14, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, P.S.-Vashi, in the district of Thane, Maharashtra. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Mahavir Prasad Katarania son of Late Bhagwan Dasji Katarania, 502, Surya Vihar Appartment, Exhibition Road, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, in the district of Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 6 01-05-2012 Heard Shri Deepak Kumar, learned cousnel for the petitioner, Shri Sanjeet Kumar, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the complainant/opposite party no.2 and Shri Ram Chandra Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The present petition was filed with a prayer to quash an order dated 8.1.2007 passed by Sri Shahab Kausar, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.1862(C) of 2006, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25144 of 2009 (6) dt.01-05-2012 2 / 3 2 and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that besides filing present complaint petition, the complainant had also filed a suit for recovery of cheque amount involved in the present case. By way of filing supplementary affidavit, it has been submitted that in the suit i.e. Summary Suit No.102 of 2008, the complainant of the present case, who is plaintiff, has filed an application for withdrawal of the suit. In the said application in paragraph-5, same cheques have been mentioned, which are involved in the present case. It was submitted that the entire cheque amount has already been paid to the complainant and complainant, after clearance, is intending not to proceed with the complaint petition. Shri Sanjeet Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party no.2 does not dispute the statement made by learned Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25144 of 2009 (6) dt.01-05-2012 3 / 3 3 counsel for the petitioner. He also submits that entire dispute in between the parties has already been settled. In view of the stand taken by the parties, the court is of the opinion that for the ends of justice, it is required to quash entire proceeding in Complaint Case No.1862(C) of 2006. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and order dated 8.1.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint case No.1862(C) of 2006 as well as entire proceeding is hereby set aside and petition stands allowed. N.H./- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.