IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45398 of 2009 1. Mukesh Gupta @ Mukesh R. Gupta, son of Late Raj Narayan Gupta, Ex-Chairman, Lloyds Finance Ltd., II Floor, Viraj Impex, House 47, P.D. Mellow Road, PS Masjid Bander, Mumbai – 400 009. 2. Lloyds Finance Limited through its Managing Director, namely, Pankaj Desai, son of Ratilal Desai, II Floor, Viraj Impex, House 47, P.D. Mellow Road, PS Masjid Bander, Mumbai – 400 009. 3. Gulab Chand Garg, son of Late R.C. Garg, Ex-Managing Director, Lloyds Finance Limited, II Floor, Viraj Impex, House 47, P.D. Mellow Road, PS Masjid Bander, Mumbai – petitioners. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Sri Satendra Kumar Sinha, son of Late Jog Narayan Singh, Shanti Sadan, East Budha Colony, PS Budha Colony, Patna – Opp. Parties. 3 27.4.2010 Counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make correction in paragraphs 1 and 5 of the quashing application. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 31.8.2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1426©/2001 by which cognizance for the offences under sections 406 and 120 of the Penal Code has been taken. In view of the fact that the Chairman and the Managing Director of Lloyds Finance Limited have made payment to opposite party no.2 with respect to his dues as made out in the allegations in the complaint petition, it is prayed that the case may be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the order, dated 24.2.2009 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 27511 of 2002 in which the 2 case of the Branch Manager has been quashed. In the present case notices were issued to opposite party no.2 but no body has appeared. Counsel for the petitioners refers to memorandum of understanding contained in Annexure 25 and the receipt which is at page 174 of the brief which indicates that the entire payment has been made to opposite party no.2. It appears that opposite party no.2 is not interested in pursuing the case since he has received the entire dues. In view of the fact that the entire outstanding dues have been paid by the petitioners and the infact that there can be no grievance, it would amount to waste of court’s time and abuse of process of law if this case is allowed to continue. In the aforesaid circumstances the impugned order as far as the petitioners are concerned, is quashed. This application is allowed. In case opposite party no.2 denies that he has received the sum of Rs.68,801/- vide demand draft nos. 058330 to 058341, 058345 to 05858, dated 25.2.2004, he may move this court for modification of the present order. This application is allowed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)