IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35108 of 2005 1. LIOYDS FINANCE LTD. through its Managing Director, namely, PANKAJ DESAI, son of Shri Ratilal Desai, IInd Floor, Viraj Impex House 47, P.D. Mellow Road, P.S. Masjid Bander, Mumbai – 400 009. 2. Pankaj Desai @ Pankaj R. Desai, son of Shri Ratilal Desai, Managing Director, Lloyds Finance Limited, II-Floor, Viraj Impex, House 47, P.D. Mellow Road, P.S. Masjid Bander, Mumbai – 400 009. 3. Mukesh R. Gupta, alias Mukesh Gupta, son of Late Raj Narayan Gupta, Ex- Managing Director, Lloyds Finance Ltd; IInd Floor, Viraj Impex House 47, P.D. Mellow Road, P.S. Masjid Bander, Mumbai – 400 009. 4. Vijay Kumar Singh, son of Late Damodar Singh, Branch Manager, Lloyds Finance Limited, 1st Floor, III Jagat Trade Centre, Frazer Road, Patna. ------------- Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Ajay Kumar Bhattacharjee, son of name not known to the petitioner, resident of Sushila Sadan, Road No.1 D, Rajendra Nagar, P.S. – Kadamkuan, Patna (Complainant). ------------- Opposite Parties. ****** For the petitioners : Shri Manish Kumar, Adv. For the Opp. Party : Shri B.P. Thakur, Adv. For the State : Shri Ajay Mishra, APP. ****** 12. 10.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed for quashing of the order dated 02.04.2005 passed by Shri Om Prakash Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 753(C)/2005, for which cognizance has been taken against petitioners under section 406 and 240 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The opposite party no.2 had made earlier some investments with the petitioners’ company due to non-payment 2 of principal interest etc. the complaint was filed wherein cognizance was taken by the impugned order. 4. By filing of the supplementary affidavit enclosing receipt issued by opposite party no.2 confirming full and final payment against all such dues and cleans against the petitioners’ company. 5. It would not be out of place to mention that normally in such type of cases wherein if any claim remains with respect to interest on the principal amount so advanced, proceeding before the court below are being quashed giving liberty to the parties to take action in case of non-payment after the decision of Bombay High Court in Company Petition No. 1017 of 2002 but in the instant case, but, since full and final payment has been received by the opposite party no.2, such liberty is also not required. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, impugned order and the proceedings before the court below stands quashed and this application is hereby disposed of. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)