IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29272 of 2001 NARAYAN SINGH Versus BACHA SINGH & ANR ----------- 3. 18.8.2010. Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner on repeated calls. I have heard Sri D.Mehta, learned A.P.P. for the State. On perusal of the complaint petition, I find that the complainant had stated that the accused/petitioner had promised to pay back the money on two occasions and on the third he was bent upon to quarrel with the complainant. There is no allegation that the petitioner was refusing to pay back the money on the third occasion also. The petitioner has not been summoned for committing offence u/S 323 IPC. As regards the offence under Section 406 IPC, there does not appear any dishonest intention as the accused was ready to pay back the money and wanted time. The order summoning the accused is hereby quashed. The proceeding, as such, initiated vide Complaint Case No.1800 of 1998 is also quashed. The petition is allowed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )