Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6836 of 2010 ================================================== Mahaveer Prasad Mudgal Son of Late Laxshmi Narayan Mudgal, resident of 706, Kunda Walan, Ajmeri Gate, P.S. Lal Khan, New Delhi. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, and 2. M/s Vankos & Company a partnership firm having its registered office at 13/2, Industrial Estate, Patna-800013 (Bihar) through its duly constituted attorney Shri Sudhir Kumar Sinha son of Late R.R.Sinha, resident of Mohalla: S.K. Nagar, P.S. Budha Colony, District and Town: Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties. ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 6. 09-10-2012 Heard Mr. Kumar Ravish, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradeep Narain Kunwar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Sri D. N. Sahay, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Nalin Vilochan Tiwari, learned counsel for complainant/opp. party no. 2. The present petition was filed with a prayer to quash an order dated 31-05-2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1140 (C) of 2004, whereby, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . At the very outset, it was submitted by learned Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6836 of 2010 (6) dt.09-10-2012 2 / 3 2 counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the complainant/opp. party no. 2 that during the pendency of this petition, good sense prevailed and both the parties have agreed to settle the dispute and a joint petition has been filed before the court below for compromising the issue. By filing supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has brought on record order-sheets of the court below as well as certified copy of the joint compromise petition. It has been asserted that agreed settled amount has already been paid to the complainant and thereafter, specific statement has been made that complaint petition may be dropped against all the accused persons. This statement has been made in paragraph no. 5 of the compromise petition, annexed to the supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party no. 2 also submits that now in view of settlement, the complainant is not at all interested to further pursue the complaint case before the court below. He has also agreed for dropping of the proceeding. He further submits that Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6836 of 2010 (6) dt.09-10-2012 3 / 3 3 offences for which, cognizance order has been passed i.e. [STATUTE] , are compoundable offences. In view of the fact that dispute has already been settled between the parties, the Court is of the opinion that no purpose would be served in allowing the proceeding to further proceed and as such, order of cognizance dated 31-05-2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 1140 (C) of 2004 and entire criminal proceeding in the said case is hereby set aside. The petition stands allowed. Anay (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.