IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC NO.758 OF 2007 1. LALAN KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE RAMDEO PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PANCHMAHLA, P.S. MOKAMA, DISTRICT PATNA 2. BINOD KUMAR, SON OF SHASHI BHUSHAN MISHRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. PESHRAMA, P.S. KURHNI, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR 3. RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH, SON OF SRI NANDKESHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JEER, P.S. ASTHAWAN, DISTRICT NALANDA……….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SATISH KUMAR, SON OF JYOTISH PD. SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BRAHMPURA SINGH COLONY, KRISHNA TOILI, P.S. BRAHMPURA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR 3. ASHOK KUMAR, SON OF LATE BAL KRISHNA PRASAD 4. OM PRAKASH GUPTA, SON OF SRI GANESH PRASAD 5. MANOJ KUMAR, SON OF SRI PARAS NATH 6. ARUN KUMAR PANDEY, SON OF LATE RAMESHWAR PANDEY, ALL RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA- BRAHAMPURA, P.S. BRAHAMPURA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR………………………………………..RESPONDENTS ----------- 8. 19.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State and also learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 6. Petitioners have filed this writ application for quashing of first information report in connection with Brahmpura P.S. Case No.63/98 registered under Sections 409, 420 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code. From the first information report, it appears that the dispute is merely in respect of money claim. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that petitioners had duped the complainants and others to the effect that they had commenced business in - 2 - the name and style of Badrika Group of Companies in which complainants will be appointed as office bearers. The complainants were motivated to collect money on behalf of the Company and deposit the same with the Company. This went on for some time and thereafter the Company vanished leaving the complainants and the depositors high and dry. In the circumstances, the complainants filed the complaint against the petitioners which was referred to the police under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and was registered as substantive case mentioned above. It appears that some time after institution of the case, petitioners approached the complainants and settled the matter between themselves and a compromise petition was filed, signed by both sides, in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. Since money involved in the case was beyond the limits for compounding the case, petitioners have filed this writ application for quashing of the first information report in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the State is present.A counter affidavit has been filed on - 3 - behalf of the State officials and learned counsel for the State submits that the case has been found true and steps have been taken in the case for arrest of the accused persons and charge sheet is likely to be submitted soon. The complainants were added as party respondent nos. 2 to 6 in the case. They have appeared through Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel, who has received instructions from their clients. He submits that all the grievances of the complainants have been redressed by petitioners. Therefore, they have settled the matter between themselves. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that in the ends of justice, the criminal prosecution should be quashed and parties should be left to live in peace. Therefore, the first information report of Brahmpura P.S. Case No.63/98 and criminal prosecution launched against the petitioners is hereby quashed. This application is allowed. B.T (J. N. Singh, J.)