CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.21857 OF 2005 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) * * * * * 1.LLOYDS FINANCE LTD., Through its Managing Director Pankaj Desai, 2nd Floor, Viraj Implex House 47, P.D. Mellow Road, P.S. Masjid Bander, Mumbai – 400 009 2.MUKESH R.GUPTA, Son of Late Raj Narayan Gupta, Llords Finance Ltd., 2nd Floor Viraj Impex House 47, P.D. Mellow Road, P.S. Masjid Bander, Mumbai – 400 009 3.RAJESH R.GUPTA, Son of Raj Narayan Gupta, Lloyds Finance Ltd., 2nd Floor, Viraj Implex House 47, P.D. Mellow Road, P.S. Masjid Bander, Mumbai – 400 009 4.VIJAY KUMAR SINGH @ V.K.SINGH, Branch Manager, Lloyds Finance Ltd. 1st Floor, 111 Jagat Trade Centre, Frazer Road, Patna ………..Petitioners Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.MRS. BASANTI GARG, Wife of Sr. D.R. Garg, Road No. 14-A East Ashok Nagar, Patna – 800 020 ……..Opposite Parties For the Petitioners : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, A.P.P. * * * * * P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA * * * * * Akhilesh Chandra,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. 2. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 05th January 2004 taking cognizance, in Complaint Case No. 921 (C) of 2003 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners 2 that principal amount of investment worth Rs. 19,000/- (Nineteen Thousand) made by the complainant-opposite party no. 2 with the company. Company and the petitioners has already been paid to the opposite party no. 2, through three Demand Draft Nos. 980442-41-43 dated 03.08.2010, in lieu thereof the opposite party no. 2 has already issued receipt, further stating that with respect to her claim for payment of interest, the party shall abide by the decision of Bombay High Court in Company Petition No. 1017 of 2002 to this effect supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, serving copy to learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 4. In series of cases of almost similar nature where in complaints have been filed against the petitioners, this court has quashed the proceedings pending before the courts below, giving liberty to the parties to take appropriate step, in case of failure in compliance of order of the Bombay High Court in Company Petition No. 1017 of 2002. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly concedes to the above preposition. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, 3 especially payment of principal amount to the opposite party no. 2 and pendency of the matter before the Bombay High Court, where in claims as regard to interest is to be determined. I find no reason to permit further proceedings of Complaint Case No. 921(C) of 2003, initially pending in the court of Sri Isratullah, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, who vide order dated 05th January, 2004 took cognizance for the offences under Section 406 and 120-B of the Penal Code, now pending in the court of Ashok Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna to continue as any further continuance shall produce, no fruitful result. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. Patna High Court Date: 17th August, 2010 Praveen/- (Akhilesh Chandra,J.)