IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7663 of 2008 1. Nutan Sinha, wife of Mukul Kumar Sinha. 2. Mukul Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Basudeo Narayan. Both residents of Village- Paschim Vihar Colony, Ranjan Path, P.S. Danapur (Rupaspur), District-Patna.......Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Umesh Kumar Singh, Son of Late Indra Deo Singh, resident of Village and P.O. Kathar, P.S. Krishna Brahum, District-Buxar at present residing at Quarter No. 29, Road No.3, Gardanibagh, District- Patna.......................Opposite Parties. ----------- For the Petitioners: Mr. A.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the Opposite Party No.2: Mr. Vindhya Keshari, Senior Advocate and Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh No. II, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, A. P.P. ----------- 4. 20.01.2011. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners, Opposite party no.2 and the State. The petitioners have challenged the order of cognizance dated 02.05.2007 passed in a complaint case no. 944 (C) of 2007 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna, took cognizance under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged in the complaint petition that Rs. 1,00,000/-(One Lac) in cash and Rs.4,50,000/-(Four Lac Fifty Thousand) through cheques were paid to petitioner no.2 for executing sale deed of 1.07 Acres of land 2 through original landholder but sale deed was not executed. The other complaint being complaint case no. 973(C) of 2006 has also been filed by the complainant against petitioner no.2 for bouncing of cheque issued by petitioner no. 2 of Rs. 50,000/-(Fifty Thousand). Hence, the amount paid through cheques in complaint case no. 944(C) of 2007 and complaint case no. 973(C) of 2006 are Rs.4,50,000/-(Four Lac Fifty Thousand) + Rs. 50,000/-(Fifty Thousand)= Rs.5,00,000/-(Five Lac). Both sides agree to settle the dispute if the amounts paid through cheques are returned within stipulated time frame. Mr. Bindhya Keshari, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, on instructions submits that out of the said Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lac),he has received Rs. 1,70,000/-(One Lac Seventy Thousand). Hence, the petitioners are liable to make payment of Rs. 3,30,000/-(Three Lac Thirty Thousand). The petitioner no.2 undertakes to pay Rs. 3,30,000/-(Three Lac Thirty Thousand) within a period of three months through the Bank Draft to the complainant which is acceptable to complainant side. 3 With the agreement of the parties, on the terms indicated above, there is no sense in allowing the prosecution to proceed further. Basically, the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and using the criminal forum for redressal of civil dispute has been deprecated by Apex Court in Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. N.E.P.C. India Ltd., & others. 2006(6) S.C.C.736. Since both parties have settled the dispute on the terms indicated above and in the opinion of the court the continuation of proceeding will be abuse of the process of the court, let the order of cognizance dated 02.05.2007 including the entire prosecution of complaint case no. 944 (C) of 2007 be quashed. It is further submitted that the petitioners have also filed a complaint case no. 2234(C) of 2008 against opposite party no.2 in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 403 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. There are two cases of the same nature apart from the present case, one each lodged from each side, as indicated above. Both sides are not interested in pursuing both the matter in view of settlement arrived at in the present proceeding. Both sides agreed to file appropriate 4 application in both the cases i.e., complaint case no. 2234(C) of 2008 and complaint case no. 973 (C) 2006 before the learned courts below within fifteen days of the payment of entire agreed amount when the learned courts below will pass appropriate order expeditiously on the terms indicated above. It is made clear that any default by the petitioners in their undertaking before this Court will give liberty to either side to file appropriate application before this Court. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.)