Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6890 of 2011 ================================================== Hemant Kumar Tiwary son of Mulidhar Tiwary resident of village Khemichak P.S. Amarpur District Banka. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Chandrashekhar Rai son of Ganesh Rai resident of village Salempur P.S. Amarpur District Banka. .... .... Opposite Party. ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4. 17-10-2012 Today again, on call, none appeared on behalf of complainant/opposite party no. 2. Yesterday also, none had appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2, whereas, opposite party no. 2 has already entered appearance through his counsel. The petitioner, in the present case, has prayed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 366 of 2004/T.R. No. 394 of 2010 pending in the court of Shri S. K. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Banka. The aforesaid complaint petition was filed by the opposite party no. 2 on an allegation of commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (in short “N.I.Act”) and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6890 of 2011 (4) dt.17-10-2012 2 / 3 2 Code. It was alleged that a cheque for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was given by the petitioner to the complainant and on presentation, same was dishonored and as such, complaint petition was filed. After conducting inquiry, the learned Magistrate passed the order of cognizance for offence under [STATUTE] and Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of this case, total amount was refunded to the complainant/opposite party no. 2 and dispute in between the parties has already been settled. Thereafter, a petition was filed on behalf of complainant, vide „Annexure-2‟ to the petition, with a prayer for withdrawal of the complaint case. Sri Ganpati Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically referred contents of the withdrawal petition, wherein, it has been indicated that dispute in between the parties has already been settled and entire amount has already been refunded to the complainant Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6890 of 2011 (4) dt.17-10-2012 3 / 3 3 and thereafter, the complainant/opposite party no. 2 made a prayer for withdrawal of the complaint case. Keeping in view the fact that dispute has already been settled between the parties and complainant/opposite party no. 2 himself has filed a petition for withdrawal, the Court is of the opinion that allowing further proceeding before the court below in Complaint Case No. 366 of 2004/T.R. No. 394 of 2010 will not serve any purpose, rather it will amount to allowing abuse of the process of the Court. With a view to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, this is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of petitioner and as such, entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 366 of 2004/T.R. No. 394 of 2010 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Banka is hereby set aside. The petition stands allowed. Anay (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.