IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35396 of 2008 K.SRI NIVASAN @ K.SRI NIVASAN RAO Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 2. 12.9.2008. A counter affidavit has been filed in Court today on behalf of the complainant-O.P. No.2. Keep it on record. Heard Mr. P.R. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Akash Chaturvedi, the learned counsel for the complainant-O.P. No.2 and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner who happens to be the Managing Director of M/s. Jai Janani Books and Publication Private Limited and has been impleaded as one of the accused in Complaint Case No.2980(C) of 2006, has prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 3.1.2007, whereby Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 406, 420, 120-B I.P.C. Mahendra Kumar Maloo, the complainant, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, the authorized Manager of M/s. United Paperboards Limited, filed the aforesaid complaint alleging, inter alia, that he had demanded the payment for some goods supplied by him to the petitioner but the petitioner did not pay the same notwithstanding the complainant having made requests for the same either through telephone or through authorized persons. It was also alleged that in furtherance of dishonest intention and conspiracy the petitioner had committed breach of trust and had cheated the complainant by - 2 - embezzling a sum of Rs.3,52,303/- for wrongful gain to himself and thereby had caused wrongful loss to the complainant and as such they were liable to be prosecuted and punished. It appears that the petitioner had moved an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. inter alia on the grounds, namely, that he was a resident of Hyderabad, the case was purely of civil nature and that the entire case had arisen out of a bonafide mistake in the payment to O.P. No.2 and the entire liability had been cleared to the full and final satisfaction of O.P. No.2 and that he was no more desirous of pursuing the case and does not want to lead any evidence. However, the application did not find favour with the Magistrate who rejected the same and directed the petitioner to appear in court in person. Referring to Annexure-2 which is receipt granted by O.P. No.2, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant by the aforesaid receipt had made it clear that he had received a demand draft of Rs.2,65,000/- in full and final settlement of all his claims against the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No.2980(C) of 2006 and that nothing outstanding remained to be paid. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to paragraphs- 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit filed in Court today on behalf of the complainant-O.P. No.2 and submitted that the complainant was not interested in pursuing the complaint case as he had been paid all his dues in full and final satisfaction of his claims and also that he did not wish to oppose this application in view of the - 3 - settlement arrived at between the parties and he had no objection if the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner was quashed by this Court. A perusal of Section 320 Cr.P.C. shows that Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. are compoundable at the instance of the owner of the property in respect of which breach of trust has been committed and the person cheated. Section 120-B I.P.C. also becomes compoundable since it relates to the offences alleged. Therefore, when the parties have amicably settled their disputes and now no claim of the complainant remains with the petitioner to allow the proceeding to continue would be an absolute abuse of the process of the court more so when the complainant in letter and spirit has accepted having received payment of all his claims to his full and final satisfaction. In view of the counter affidavit filed by the complainant- O.P. No.2, accepting having received payment of all his claims in full and final settlement thereof and he not being interested in pursuing the case, it would only be just and proper if the entire criminal proceedings and the impugned order taking cognizance, so far as the petitioner is concerned, is quashed. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings and the impugned order taking cognizance, so far as the petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)