IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.378 of 1998 KRISHNA SAHA, son of Shri Ram Chandra Saha, resident of Gurudwara Road, Police Station- Kotwali, Gaya, District- Gaya. . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. District Magistrate, Gaya 3. Officer-in-charge, Kotwali police station, Gaya. 4. Surendra Prasad Gupta, son of Sri Shivanandan Prasad Gupta, Resident of Mir Safayat Road, P.S. Kotwali, District- Gaya. . . . . Respondents. ----------- 9/ 09.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is facing prosecution in Kotwali Gaya P.S. case no. 86 of 1998 instituted on 27.04.1998 on the basis of written report filed by one Narshingha Prasad, opposite party no.4, who has died. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that he is account holder of daily deposit of Shakti Builders and Financial Company Ltd. On 27.04.1998 when reached the office, he found the office locked and he came to know by others that the Company is not paying the matured amount and the Board of Directors of the company are trying to misappropriate the amount of the account holders. The petitioner submits that on account of circumstances beyond, his control the company sustained a loss. Thereafter he filed an application before this Court on 15.04.1998 for winding up the company vide Company petition no. 7 of 1998. As per Section 441(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, the winding up of company commences with filing of such petition. Under Section 446 of the Companies Act, no suit or Civil proceeding may commence or 2 continue against the company. Further more, under Section 456 of the Companies Act, on passing of winding up order, or on appointment of the provisional liquidator, the latter takes into it custody specific control of all properties. It is stated in paragraph 14 that on 15.05.1998 this Court had appointed a provisional liquidator. Under Section 474 of the Companies Act, claims of creditors have to be proved before the liquidator. Under Section 545 of Companies Act, Company Court can direct prosecution. The complainant or Surendra Prasad Gupta can make their respective money claims against the assets of the Companies in the Company petition and before the Liquidator. Counsel for the State is present. No one appears for the private respondents. The winding up process has started in this Court vide Company petition no. 07 of 1998 before this Court. A provisional liquidator was already appointed on 15.05.1998 by learned Company Judge to settle the disputes of the creditors. In the circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal prosecution to continue. In the circumstances, the criminal prosecution is quashed. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)