IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18814 of 2007 M/S STERLING HILIDAY RESORTS (1)LTD. & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- FOR THE PETITIONERS: MR. AMARESH KUMAR SINHA, ADV. MR.. DAYANAND SINGH, ADV. FOR THE STATE : MR. PARMESHWAR METHA, A.P.P. -------------- 4. 09.04.2010 The petitioners have challenged the order dated 17.1.2001 of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna passed in Complaint Case No. 1621(C) of 2000 whereby cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the I.P.C. was taken against the petitioner and two others namely, Amitabh Mishra and Vikash Sharma who are not amongst the petitioners. The complainant Rakesh Kumar filed a complaint against the petitioners and two others namely, Amitabh Mishra and Vikash Sharma on 20.9.2000 alleging that he (complainant) had advanced a sum of Rs. 5500/- and 6000/- through two cheques as detailed in the complaint for construction of a Holiday Resort by the petitioners and two others. Further allegation was that subsequently the money was not utilized for the purpose and work was not done and when the complainant demanded his money back it was not returned to the complainant. Some other persons are also said to have paid some money to the petitioners as per assertions in the complaint. On consideration of the complainant’s assertion in his examination on S.A. and the statement of witnesses, the learned Magistrate found a prima facie case and cognizance of offence vide impugned order was taken. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to Annexure- 2 2 which is a compromised petition filed by the parties before the court below and Annnexure-3 which is also a separate petition for permission to compound the offence which were filed before the trial court. It is not known whether the court below has granted any permission for the compounding or not. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in view of the compromise, the demands have already been settled and the petitioners have already paid the aforesaid money to the complainant. Further submission is that due to settlement of the demand and dispute between the parties, no useful purpose will be served for carrying out the prosecution before the court below. Hence it is submitted that this Court may exercise it’s extraordinary powers as available under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. quash the impugned order and the prosecution on it’s basis. The decision in the Case of B.S. Joshi and others Vrs State of Haryana and another reported in A.I.R. 2003, S.C. Page-1386 was cited on behalf of the petitioners. It was a case under Sections 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code under a complaint filed by the wife. After filing of the case the wife and husband entered into divorce under mutual consent. A prayer had been made in that case for quashing the criminal prosecution for offence under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code which had been compromised between the parties. In that situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no fruitful purpose would be served and there may be difficulty in carrying out the decree of divorce if the prosecution of the criminal case is not quashed. It was held in such a situation, the High Court had extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the criminal prosecution on the 3 ground of compromise between the parties. The leaned counsel also cited the decision in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Versus the State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 S.C.C. Page- 582. It was a case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code involving extensive business dealings between the parties and the case was compromised. Finding that allegation in the case did not involve any public policy and that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of compromise, the criminal prosecution was quashed in that case. In view of the position as laid down by the Supreme Court in the above case, the learned counsel sought to impress that in this case also the demand have already been settled and that, therefore, no fruitful purpose will be served in carrying out the prosecution before the court below hence the impugned order and the subsequent proceeding carried out on its basis be quashed by this Court. No doubt, the petitioners say that a compromise has been arrived at and a copy of compromise has also been filed vide Annexure-2, but the complainant who has been arrayed as O.P. No.2 and on whom notice was also served has not appeared before this Court to support the factum of the compromise. Besides this, one another aspects also remains that prosecution is against eight accused persons and amongst them only six have come here as the petitioners under this case and other two have not challenged the impugned order. In such a situation, a technical difficulty is also arising in taking any view on the lines as prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In such view of the matters, I find no sufficient ground to interfere into 4 the impugned order. Therefore, the application is dismissed. The petitioner may appear before the court below and pray for taking a view on compromise during the prosecution and the court below will take a view according to the law. (C.M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-