IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28489 of 2009 RAMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA, SON OF LATE KASHI PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, RESIDNT OF P- 326, JALWAYU VIHAR, SECTOR 21, NOIDA, DISTRICT- GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR (U.P.) ----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. NITU CONSTRUCTION, KAHALGAON THROUGH PHULO YADAV, PROPRIETOR, NITU CONSTRUCTION, VILLAGE- KHARWA TOLA, P.S.- KAHALGAON, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the Petitioner :- Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, Senior Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party :- Mr. Amaresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate. ----------- 2 10.8.2009 This application was originally filed challenging the order dated 1.6.2009 by which the application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not considered by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhagalpur, and in fact no order was passed on the said application, rather a warrant of arrest against the petitioner was issued. A supplementary affidavit has been filed in which a prayer has been made to quash the Complaint Case No. C 256/99 and all subsequent orders arising out of the aforesaid complaint case. The opposite party no. 2 Nitu Construction, Kahalgaon through Phulo Yadav, Proprietor appears through his counsel in this Court. A case was instituted under Sections 323, 420, 504 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code 2 and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. There was an outstanding dues of Rs. 78,227/- against the petitioner. The petitioner issued a cheque which bounced and has led to this criminal case. The case of the petitioner on the other hand is that the cheque was never presented for encashment and as such no offence under the Negotiable Instrument Act is made out in this case. Be that as it may, whatever be the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties against each other, they have now agreed to compromise the matter and have filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class in Complaint Case No. C 256/99 wherein it has been clearly stated at paragraph 4 fd nksuksa i{kksa us vkil esa fey cSBdj] muds lg;ksfx;ksa ,oa fe=x.k ds gzLr{ksi ls U;k;ky; ds ckgj mDr fookn dks lqy>k fy;k x;k gS rFkk vfHk;qDrx.k ifjoknh dks lEiw.kZ jde dk Hkqxrku Mªk¶V la[;k 085192 fnukad 30-3-2009 eksoyx 78]227-00 (vBgRrj gtkj nks lkS lRrkbZl :i;k ek=) nsus dks rS;kj gSa] ftldk QksVks izfr Hkh ifjoknh dks gzLrxr djk fn;k x;k gSA rFkk ifjoknh dk dksbZ Hkh jde cdk;k ugha gSaA It has also been stated that they are no longer interested to pursue the matter 3 as the petitioner is ready to pay the amount and for that purpose a Demand Draft having numbered as “085192” has been prepared on 30.3.2009 and has been presented in this Court to be paid to the counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. This Court finds that since the parties do not want to pursue the matter, the Draft is being paid in the presence of the Court through the counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2. There is no dispute left between the parties, as they have settled the matter out of Court. All the offences are compoundable with the permission of the Court. As a result of the compromise between the parties, the entire proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. C 256/99 now stands quashed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)