IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33606 of 2004 1. MUKESH R.GUPTA , M “CHAIRMAN” LLOYDS FINANCE LTD., 3 RAHOGE CENTRE, GROUND FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021. 2. PANKAJ DESAI “MANAGING DIRECTOR” LLOYDS FINANCE LTD. 3 RAHEJA CENTRE, GROUND FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021. 3. VIJAY KUMAR SINGH, “BRANCH MANAGER”, LLOYDS FINANCE LTD. 111 JAGAT TRADE CENTRE, FRASER ROAD, PATNA-800001. …………………………………………………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. LITTLE FLOWER LEPROSY WELFARE ASSOCIATION, R/O SUNDERPUR, P.O.- RAXAUL, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN THROUGH IT’S SECRETARY BROTHER CHRISTDAS. …………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners : M/s. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate and Manish Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : None. ------------ 11. 24.2.2009. The Chairman and the Managing Director of M/s. Lloyds Finance Limited as also the Branch Manager of the Patna Branch of the said Company, who alongwith others have been impleaded as accused in Complaint Case No.2429(C) of 2003, have prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom including the order dated 12.2.2004 passed by Sri S.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners stating therein that the entire principal amount has been - 2 - paid to the complainant/opposite party no.2 for which a receipt has been granted and the said receipt is appended to the supplementary affidavit as Annexure-‘8’. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter of payment of interest has been kept in abeyance awaiting the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Company Petition No.1017 of 2002. It is stated in paragraph 2 of the receipt that he is receiving the principal amount subject to the stipulation that the payment of interest shall abide by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Company Petition No.1017 of 2002 and after its payment nothing remains to be paid towards principal of the deposits. Although notice was duly served on the complainant who has been impleaded as O.P. No.2 herein and he had appeared by filing vakalatnama, yet he and his counsel at the time of hearing of this application are conspicuous by their absence. Therefore, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners remain unrebutted. Since the principal amount has already been paid to complainant/O.P. No.2 and payment of interest stands in abeyance awaiting the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Company Petition No.1017 of 2002, the impugned order taking cognizance, so far as these three petitioners are concerned, is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)