IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15317 of 2009 MANOJ KUMAR SINGH & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3. 25.02.2011. Heard Mrs. Sushmita Mishra learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Murli Dhar, learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 05.09.2008 whereby the cognizance has been taken under Sections 406, 420 and 468 of the I. P. C. In the complaint petition, allegation has been levelled that the petitioners have received certain amount from the complainant for getting loan for purchase of vehicle but after accepting the money the finance was not sanctioned which caused loss to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. In spite of valid service of notices, the opposite party no.2 has chosen not to appear. There is nothing on record to suggest that the complainant paid any money to the petitioners or by non- sanctioning of the loan amount the petitioners have committed any offence. 2 Petitioners’ side also lodged a case against another Finance Company for running a group for putting pressure on the Finance Company for advancing loan, in that case also cognizance has been taken. Prima facie, the case appears to be arising out of the contractual dealings and since the complainant has no interest in the matter hence in the interest of justice no useful purpose will be served in allowing to continue the prosecution which amounts to misuse of process of law. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 05.09.2008 including the entire prosecution of C.A. No. 293 of 2008 with respect to the petitioners only, pending in the court of the learned J.M. Ist Class, Vikramganj, Rohtas is hereby quashed. Accordingly, this application is allowed. U. K. ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)