IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 322 of 2005 P.N. Dhoot and another …Applicants Versus State and others …Respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have prayed for setting aside the order dated 28.3.2005 in Criminal Complaint Case No. 65/2005 under Sections 406, 420 and 500 I.P.C., and further for quashing the proceeding in Case No. 65/2005 titled M/s Super Agencies through its owner Mukesh Rawal vs. P.N. Dhoot, Managing Director Videocon International Ltd. 2- Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by M/s Super Agencies before the Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar alleging therein that Videocon International Company issued Money Back Scheme and according to that scheme, the bonds were also issued and on the basis of the bonds, after certain period the money had to be prepaid to the consumers. Certain consumers purchased TVs, but money back bonds were not received by them even after they made several payments from the dealer. The trial court vide order dated 28th March, 2005 issued the summons to the petitioners to face trial under Sections 406, 420 and 500 I.P.C. The petitioners preferred the petition before this Court on the ground that the 2 summoning order is a sheer abuse of process of court. In fact, no case is made out against the petitioners for the offences they have been summoned. 3- Counter affidavit was filed by the complainant/respondent no.3 and in paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that now petitioners and answering respondent have settled the accounts and in the said settlement the answering respondent has accepted the cheque to the tune of Rs.26,000/- from the petitioners and nothing is due towards the petitioners. It has been averred in the counter affidavit that complainant/respondent no. 3 has now no grievance against the petitioners and he has also no objection, if summoning order dated 28th March, 2005 as well as the proceedings of the aforesaid trial pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, be quashed. 4- Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3, has stated before the Court that the dispute has now been settled between the parties. 5- In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served if the trial is allowed to continue. The continuance of the trial will certainly amount to abuse of process of court and it will be a sheer wastage of time of the court, especially under the circumstances when the 3 parties have settled their disputes and they have entered into compromise. 6- Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The summoning order dated 28.03.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, as well as the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 65/2005 under Sections 406, 420 and 500 I.P.C., are quashed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 27-07-2010 SP