CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.49304 OF 2006 In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1. LLOYDS FINANCE LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NAMELY, PANKAJ DESAI, SON OF RTILAL DESAI, II FLOOR, VIRAJ IMPEX, HOUSE – 47, P.D. MELLOW ROAD, P.S. MASJID BANDER, MUMBAI – 400 009. 2. MUKESH R. GUPTA, ALIAS MUKESH GUPTA, SON OF RAJ NARAYAN GUPTA, EX-MANAGING DIRECTOR, LIOYDS FINANCE LIMITED, II FLOOR, VIRAJ IMPEX, HOUSE – 47, P.D. MELLOW ROAD, P.S. MASJID BANDER, MUMBAI – 400 009. 3. RAJESH R. GUPTA, SON OF LATE RAJ NARAYAN GUPTA, EX-DIRECTOR, LIOYDS FINANCE LIMITED, II FLOOR, VIRAJ IMPEX, HOUSE – 47, P.D. MELLOW ROAD, P.S. MASJID BANDER, MUMBAI – 400 009. ------- Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHRI RATNESH KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SHRI SHYAM BEHARI SINGH, RESIDENT OF PRASHYA SADAN, RIDING ROAD, SHEIKHPURA, P.S. SHASTRINAGAR, DISTRICT – PATNA (COMPLAINANT). ------ Opposite Parties. For the petitioners : Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Amrendra Prasad, APP For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Singh, Adv. ***** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ***** Akhilesh Chandra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. Supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 and supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners on 02.11.2010 after serving copy of the respective - 2 - counsels. 3. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the order dated 29.11.1999 passed by Shri Bibhakar Dubey, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 1205(C) of 1999 for offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 4. Admittedly, petitioner is a non- banking company with whom different schemes in which investors made their investment and opposite party no.2 also got a sum of Rs. 12,000/- deposited on 18.11.1996 and interest was being paid from month to month at prescribed rate. One of the cheque worth Rs. 540/- bounced giving rise to the case. 5. It is admitted that petitioner’s company already paid the principal amount to opposite party no.2 and also paid the amount for which the cheque was bounced. Only question of due interest till it is actual payment now remains in controversy. 6. During the course of argument, - 3 - through different annexures, it is brought into notice that Bombay High Court is in control of the controversy relating to different finance company (non-banking) including the petitioner in Company Petition Case No. 1017 of 2002 different orders have been passed from time to time and under the prescribed/approved scheme, the company has been making payment against deposits to the investors. At initial stage, principal investment is being returned to the depositors and thereafter as per direction of the court interest accrued shall be paid. 7. The above being now undisputed position. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 tried to led emphasis that there are several cases against the petitioners proceedings of which were stayed at pre and post cognizance stage. On query, by filing supplementary affidavit it is pointed out by the petitioners that around altogether 24 cases pending before the court below at pre cognizance stage wherein in compliance of order of this court in administrative side on basis of the order of - 4 - Mumbai High Court in aforesaid Company Petition stay has been granted and there are 4 to 5 cases at post cognizance stage in which no payment is made in spite of steps taken. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertook to get payment in all pending cases within 2 to 3 months. At this juncture, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 further pointed out one complaint case no. 2348(C) of 2006 relating to fixed deposits lying pending without taking any cognizance and learned counsel representing the petitioners assured payment in said case also within stipulated period. In the event of such payment of principal amount to the investor complainant on their prayer the respective cases may be disposed of with a liberty below mentioned. 8. In view of the above, especially pendency of the matter before Mumbai High Court wherein orders are expected on the point of payment of interest only thereafter further payment is to be made by petitioners towards interest and principal amount of the depositors either has already paid or as - 5 - assured shall be paid within short period mentioned above and in instant case principal amount has undisputed already been paid to opposite party no.2. There appears no necessity to further proceed with the case pending before the court below. 9. Accordingly, it is quashed with a liberty to the opposite party no.2 and other investors whose cases are disposed of on payment of principal amount to initiate a fresh proceeding in case of non-compliance of the direction of Mumbai High Court by the petitioners on the point of payment of interest. Patna High Court Dated : The 4th November 2010 Rajeev/N.A.F.R. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)