IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16424 of 1998 1. DR. GAUR HARI SINGHANIA S/O LATE SIR PADAMPAT SINGHANIA, R/O 11, CANTT-GANGA KUTI, P.S.CANTT KANPUR, KANPUR MAHANAGAR. 2. SATISH KUMAR RASTOGI S/O BHUKHAN SARAN RASTOGI R/O 1, JHONSON SQUARE CIVIL LINES, KANPUR, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTT- KANPUR, MAHANAGAR. 3. PREM NARAIN TIWARI SON OF LATE SHEO NATH TIWARI, R/O MOHALLA-KAMLA NAGAR COLONY, P.S.- NAZIRABAD, KANPUR MAHANAGAR……………ACCUSED…………PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. GANGA DAS S/O LATE SUNDER DAS, R/O VILLAGE-GOBARSAHI, P.S.-SADAR MUZAFFARPUR, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR….COMPLAINANT…………………OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 06. 26-Mar-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the complainant, O.P. No.2. 2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 10.3.1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur whereby he has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 406/420 of the IPC in Complaint Case No. 971 of 1997. 3. The main defence of the petitioners is that they have directly received no draft from the complainant and whatever draft has been forfeited in favour of Company 2 represented by the petitioners was deposited by one Hari Nath Sinha of Mohalla, Kanchan Market, Muzaffarpur because after finalizing a deal for purchase of lands for Rs. 26 Lacs, he paid an advance of Rs. 3 Lacs only and defaulted in paying the balance amount by the due date or even later. 4. On behalf of the complainant it has been submitted that 2 Lacs deposited by the complainant through bank draft has to be either refunded or land as claimed by the complainant should be transferred by the Company. However, the complainant has also failed to produce any material to support his case that there was any agreement of sale between the complainant and the Company. 5. After some arguments learned counsel for the petitioners prays to withdraw this quashing application to seek further instruction from his clients and in case they have kept the money amounting to Rs. 2 Lacs of the complainant without any agreement for sale of land then the petitioners may be given liberty to deposit the said amount in favour of the complainant and pray for discharge from the criminal case because they allegedly never had any criminal 3 intention in forfeiting the money which they believed to be of Hari Nath Sinha who according to the petitioners had deposited Rs. 3 Lacs which probably included the bank draft claimed by the complainant. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and prayer for withdrawal, this quashing application is disposed of as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid. 7. It goes without saying that this order shall not prejudice the case of the petitioners if they deposit the money and pray for discharge. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)