IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44101 of 2007 JASJIT SINGH PURI, son of late Mehar Singh Puri, Resident of D-5, Puspanjali Enclave, Pitampura, P.S. Mangolepuri, New Delhi-34. Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Rai Vimal Krishna, Son of Late Rai Uday Krishna, resident of Anand Bagh, P.S. Khajekalah, Patna City, Distt. Patna. With Cr. Misc. No.30271 of 2007 Jasjit Singh Puri (J.S. Puri), son of Late Mehar Singh Puri, resident of D 5, Puspanjali Enclave, Pitampura, P.S. Mangolepuri, New Delhi-34. Versus 1.State of Bihar 2.Rai Vimal Krishna, son of Late Rai Uday Krishna, resident of Anand Bagh, P.S. Khajekalah, Patna City, District-Patna. With Cr. Misc. No.30778 of 2007 Jasjit Singh Puri (J.S. Puri), son of Late Mehar Singh Puri, Resident of D-5, Puspanjali Enclave, Pitampura, P.S. Mangolepuri, New Delhi-34. Versus 1.State of Bihar 2.Rai Vimal Krishna, Son of Late Rai Uday Krishna, resident of Anand bagh, P.S. Khajekalah, patna City, District Patna. With Cr. Misc. No.32070 of 2007 Jasjit Singh Puri (J.S. Puri), son of Late Mehar Singh Puri, Resident of D-5, Puspanjali Enclave, Pitampura, P.S. Mangolepuri, New Delhi-34. Versus 1.State of Bihar 2.Rai Vimal Krishna, Son of late Rai Uday Krishna, resident of Anand Bagh, P.S. Khajekalah, Patna City, Distt. Patna. With Cr. Misc. No.38110 of 2007 Jasjit Singh Puri (J.S. Puri), Son of late mehar Singh Puri, Resident of D-5, Puspanjali Enclave, Pitampura, P.S. Mangolepuri, New Delhi-34. Versus 1.State of Bihar 2.Rai Vimal Krishna, son of late Rai Uday Krishna, resident of Anand Bagh, P.S. Khajekalah, Patna City, Distt. Patna. With 2 Cr. Misc. No.26867 of 2007 Jasjit Singh Puri @ J.S. Puri, son of late Mehar Singh puri, Resident of D-5, Puspanjali Enclave, pitampura, P.S. Mangolepuri, New Delhi-34. Versus 1.State of Bihar 2.Rai Vimal Krishna, Son of late Rai Uday Krishna, resident of Anand Bagh, P.S. Khajekalah, Patna City, Distt. Patna. With Cr.Misc. No.36263 of 2007 Jasjit Singh Puri, son of Late mehar Singh Puri, resident of D-5, Puspanjali Enclave, Pitampura, P.S. Mangolepuri, New Delhi-34. Versus 1.State of Bihar 2.Rai Vimal Krishna, son of late Rai Uday Krishna, resident of Anand Bagh, p.S. Khajekalah, Patna City Distt. Patna. With Cr. Misc. No.37999 of 2007 Jasjit Singh Puri, son of late Mehar Singh Puri, Resident of D-5, Puspanjali Enclave, Pitampura, P.S., Mangolepuri, New Delhi-34. Versus 1.State of Bihar 2.Rai Vimal Krishna, son of late Rai Uday Krishna, resident of Anand bagh, P.S. Khajekalah, Patna City, Distt. Patna. With Cr. Misc. No.26868 of 2007 Jasjit Singh Puri @ J.S. Puri, son of late Mehar Singh Puri, Resident of D-5, Puspanjali Enclave, Pitampura, P.S. Mangolepuri, New Delhi-34. Versus 1.State of Bihar 2.Rai Vimal Krishna, son of Late Rai Uday Krishna, resident of Anand Bagh, P.S. Khajekalah, Patna City, Distt. Patna. ----------- 8 25/11/2009 Heard counsel for the parties. The long and short of this case has already been recorded in the series of the orders passed earlier as would be evident at least from the orders of this Court dated 24.8.2009, 18.9.2009 and 3 8.10.2009. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the aforementioned orders the petitioner in these cases has already paid in all a sum of Rs.17,31,000/- that would mean that the promises made by the petitioner has been fulfilled. Counsel for the opposite party no.2, however, would submit that a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, for which a draft was given earlier, could not be encashed and therefore this Court should await for payment of the amounts in those drafts. In the opinion of this Court, criminal intent is over since the parties have already resolved their dispute and in fact opposite party no.2 has been paid substantially as recorded in the earlier orders of this Court. The apprehension of counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the payment of Rs.1,25,000/- would be stopped by the petitioner after disposal of these cases, is also misconceived because Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf the petitioner gives an undertaking that as and when uncashed drafts for the aforementioned sum of Rs.1,25,000/- would be made available to him by the counsel for the opposite party no.2 and though him to the petitioner, its payment will be made either by revalidating of the draft or by issuing a new draft. Recording the aforementioned submissions, this Court would quash the entire proceedings of criminal prosecution in all these cases relating to (i) Complaint Case No. 205(C)/2001 (ii) Complaint Case No. 431(C)/2001 4 (iii) Complaint Case No. 430(C)/2001 (iv) Complaint Case No. 833(C)/2001 (v) Complaint Case No. 928(C)/2001 (vi) Complaint Case No. 926(C)/2001 (vii) Complaint Case No. 856(C)/2000 (viii) Complaint Case No. 206(C)/2001 (ix) Complaint Case No. 924(C)/2001 and consequently all these applications stand allowed. Before parting with, it must be made clear that the aforesaid amount of Rs.17,31,000/- paid by the petitioner is the total amount for the twenty cases filed by opposite party no.2, out of which these nine cases are being disposed of by this Court and rest of eleven them are said to be pending before other Benches, which too have been agreed by the parties to be disposed of in the same terms.. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)