CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17268 OF 2003 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ----------- 1. KUNIGAL RAMASWAMY SRIKANTAN ,Son of Late Kunigal Srikantshastri Ramaswarmy, Chief General Manager, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Tilak Marg, Jaipur 2. Kamal Kumar Chattopadhyay, Son of Late KedarNath Chattopadhyay, General Manager( Operation), Head Office situated at State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Tilak Marg,Jaipur 3. Kalyan Kumar Chattopadhyay S/O Shyamapada Chattopadhyay, Dy. General Manager, presently on deputation, in the Credit Appraisal Department, State Bank of Patiala, an Associate Bank of State Bank of India, Patiala ( Punjab) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Shambhu Kumar Das, Son of Late Tilakdharir Das, resident of A/P, B-131, Mount Kailash, P.S. Lajpatnagar, District-South Delhi- 110065 ------------ For the petitioners : Sri S.D.Sanjay, Advocate For the State : Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 17.09.2002 passed by Sri B.D. Rai, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.1730 C of 2002. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 409,420,467,468, 471/120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In this case, despite the fact that a counter affidavit on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 has been filed, none has appeared on his 2 behalf at the time of hearing of the present case. 3. Sri S.D. Sanjay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that outside the court, settlement in between the parties has already arrived and due to that reason in respect of cases of two co-accused persons, this Court has already quashed the same order of cognizance. In this case, by order dated 17.09.2010, it was directed to list this case along with the record of Cr.Misc.No.17269 of 2003 disposed of on 25.4.2006 and Cr.Misc.No.12908 of 2003 disposed of on 10.12.2009. 4. I have perused the record of both the cases. Both the cases aforesaid arise out the same complaint petition and in those cases also, it was indicated on behalf of the complainant that the dispute has finally been settled between the parties. In the present case also, at paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit, which was filed on 31.1.2005, it is evident that the entire dues have already been cleared. It would be appropriate to quote the statement made in paragraph -4 of the counter affidavit, which is as follows: “4. That dispute between the parties referred to Banking Ombudsman where the matter heard in Complaint Case No.26/02 in which final order passed on 22.03.03 accordingly the petitioner settled the matter, paid Rs.6, 13,641/- as per order of Ombudsman and Rs.70000/- as reimbursement of actual expenses of the Opp.Party no.2 and a memorandum of understanding and signed by the parties on 19.04.2003. The true type copy of written Memorandum of understanding dated 19.04.03 is annexed herewith and filed as Annexure-A to this petition.” 3 5. Keeping in view the fact that other two petitions out of the same case has already been allowed and order of cognizance dated 17.09.2002 in Complaint Case No.1730( C) of 2002 in respect of other two accused persons have been quashed, there is no reason to deny the same relief to the petitioners of the present case. 6. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 17.9.2002 passed by Sri B.D.Rai, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.1730 (C) of 2002 so far as three petitioners are concerned, is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. Patna High Court, Patna Dated : 6th October,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)