Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3727 of 2010 ================================================== Rajib Prasad Sao @ Rajendra Sah, son of Sri Narayan Sahu Resident of village Bariyarpur, P.S. Bariyarpur District Munger, at present Bank Manager Munger Chhetriya Gramin Bank, Lakhilsarai. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Ishwar Dayal Kashyap son of Narendra Kumar Sinha, Resident of village + P.O. Afani, P.S. Ariyari, District – Sheikhpura. .... .... Opposite Parties ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 5. 24-08-2012 Heard Sri Ram Sumiran Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tarkeshwar Prasad Verma, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of complainant/opp. party no. 2. The sole petitioner has prayed for quashing of an order dated 03.09.2008 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura, in Complaint Case No. 317(C) of 2007, arising out of Sheikhpura P. S. Case No. 61 of 2006. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . In this case, by order dated 03.09.2010, notice was directed to be issued to opp. party no. 2 and thereafter, opp. party no. 2 has entered appearance through his counsel, namely; Sri Tarkeshwar Prasad Verma. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3727 of 2010 (5) dt.24-08-2012 2 / 3 2 In this case, a supplementary affidavit has also been filed on 03.08.2012, wherein, it has been indicated that during the pendency of this petition, dispute in between the parties has already been settled and a compromise petition has been filed before the court below. Sri Tarkeshwar Prasad Verma, learned counsel for opp. party no. 2 submits that due to misunderstanding, case was filed and since compromise has already arrived, complainant is not at all interested to further pursue the matter. In view of the stand taken by learned counsel for opp. party no. 2 as well as the fact that a compromise petition has been filed before the court below, the Court is of the opinion that allowing further proceeding in Complaint Case No. 317(C) of 2007 pending in the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura, will amount to allowing abuse of the process of the court and as such, with a view to prevent abuse of the process of the court and for the ends of justice, it is desirable to interfere with the matter. Accordingly, order of cognizance dated 03.09.2008 passed in Complaint Case No. 317(C) of 2007 by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura is, hereby, set aside and petition stands allowed. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3727 of 2010 (5) dt.24-08-2012 3 / 3 3 In view of the fact that order of cognizance as well as entire criminal proceeding has already been set aside, the petitioner is directed to be discharged from the bail-bond. Anay (Rakesh Kumar, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 409

Statute Text:
Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust by public servant or by banker, merchant or agent, etc. Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.