IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36004 of 2006 DCM FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. THRU. PRAKASH CHORADIA & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 4/ 17/03/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of the complainant O.P. No.2 despite service of notice. It is submitted that the petitioner No.2 has since been deceased on 10.7.2007. As prayed, let his name be deleted from the cause-title. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits from the allegations in the complaint that the O.P. No.2 allegedly purchased redeemable, non-convertible debentures. The petitioners after maturity of the debentures failed to pay up either the principal or the interest. They had, therefore, criminally misappropriated the money of the complainant. Learned counsel relies upon an order of this Court in Cr. Misc. No.35044/05 disposed on 15.2.2008 in context of another similar complaint case filed by another purchaser of debenture with common allegations of non-payment on maturity. The order of this Court has been brought on record as annexure-10 to a supplementary affidavit filed today. This Court at paragraph-5 of its order held in the 2 relevant extract at para-5 as follows:- “5. …..It is apparent from the reading of the cryptic complaint that there is no assertion to the effect that the petitioner nos.3 and 4 were responsible for the day to day functioning of the Company and that they had connived in the commission of the alleged offence. Even otherwise, from the allegations made in the complaint petition, it would appear that the money due to the complainant from the debenture had not been returned to him and the reasons therefore had been stated in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. That apart the matter is already subjudice before the Delhi High Court and the Company Law Board framed a scheme suo motu ordering payment to fixed depositors. From a consideration of the matter at hand, it would only be trite to say that the entire dispute relates to a “commercial transaction” and the relief therefore would be available before a court of civil jurisdiction and criminal prosecution was unwarranted.” In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no occasion for this Court to accord any different treatment to the petitioner. For reasons of the discussion contained in the order dated 15.2.2008 in Cr. Misc. No.35044/05 this application is allowed. The entire prosecution of the petitioners for the very same reasons Complaint Case No.20(C) of 2005, pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, is hereby quashed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)