IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.309 of 2008 SUNIL KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 29.1.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner prays for quashing the prosecution of Sheikhpura P.S. Case No.61/08. The informant, Girish Chandra Pandey, alleges that his son, namely, Mritunjay Pandey wanted to take admission in Hotel Management. It is alleged that this petitioner offered admission in one of the Hotel Management Institute at Indore for which he demanded a sum of Rs.35,000/-.Thereafter the informant was told to deposit the aforesaid amount in Account No.0430101002498 of U.T.I. Ltd. Branch Patna. The informant deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 26.9.2007. On enquiry the informant’s son learnt that no institute in the aforesaid name and style existed at the given place. As such, the instant F.I.R. has been lodged. Learned counsel has referred to Annexure-3 which is a receipt granted by the aforesaid institute for a sum of Rs.20,000/- for taking admission. Hence, he submits that the allegation gets reputed. Learned counsel further submits that he has filed compromise petition also. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties this Court is not inclined to quash the criminal proceeding on the aforesaid ground. It will be open to the petitioner to make a 2 representation to the investigating agency that compromise has also arrived at between the parties. The State counsel submits that the allegation has been found true and the cheque has been dishonoured. This Court for the present do not go into the merit of the allegation. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may file representation before the investigating agency who will look into the same. With the aforesaid observation this writ application is disposed of. Anilksinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)