IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15967 of 1999 1. SMT. YOGSHILA SINHA W/O SRI HARI NARAIN RAI r/o RAGHUNATH TOLA P.O. ANISABAD P.S. GARDANIBAGH, DISTT. PATNA 2. SRI RAMCHNANDRA RAI SON OF MALAL RAI R/O VILLAGE RAGHUNATH TOLA P.O ANISABAD P.S. GARDANIBAGH, DISTT.- PATNA .........PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. BIHAR STATE KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, EAST GANDHI MAIDAN DISTT- PATNA THROUGH SRI DHARAM NATH SINHA DISTT. KHADI AND INDUSTRIES OFFICER...OPP PARTIES ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Hari Narayan Rai, Advocate For the State: Mr. Amarendra Prasad APP ---------- 11 30-04-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Nobody appears on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 although lawyer’s name is appearing in the daily cause list. Petitioners have challenged the order of cognizance dated 26-7-97 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in complaint case no. 808 (M)/97 for offences under sections 406, 409 and 120B of the IPC. On behalf of the petitioners no illegality could be pointed out in the impugned order of cognizance but submission was advanced that petitioners always intended to pay the loan amount advanced by the complainant-Bihar State Khadi and Village Industries Board and learned counsel for the petitioners tried to produce before this court receipts to show that the accused persons/petitioners have already paid the entire loan amount along with interest. This court finds no good ground to interfere with the 2 order of cognizance because it suffers from no legal infirmity. Although there is no prayer for quashing of the complaint case in totality but submissions advanced for that purpose have been considered by this court. After considering the submissions which are based mainly on the earlier noticed claim of the petitioners that they have already paid the entire loan amount with interest, it is found that such plea to show bonafide of the petitioners should be raised before the court below at the time of framing of charge and on that basis the petitioners may pray for discharge. There is some force in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners that only for failure to pay back the money in time, no criminal case should proceed and bonafide of the petitioners may be tested even on the basis of their subsequent conduct that whatever loan had remained unpaid has been paid by the petitioners along with due interest. This submission has been advanced for quashing of the entire criminal case but since nobody appears on behalf of the complainant, O.P.No.2, it is not deemed proper or possible to verify the aforesaid contention. Considering all the facts and circumstances, this application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners that they may raise the aforesaid submissions before the court below and pray for discharge after satisfying the court and the complainant that they have paid the entire loan amount with interest which could be lawfully claimed. If the petitioners satisfy the court below that they 3 have paid the entire loan along with permissible interest, in that event their prayer for discharge may be considered favorably. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)