IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15263 of 2005 1. Lloyds Finance Limited, through its Managing Director, namely Pankaj Desai, S/o Sri Ratilal Desai, II Floor, Viraj Impex House 47, P.D. Mellow Road, P.S. Masjid Bander, Mumbai – 400009 2. Pankaj Desai, S/o Sri Ratilal Desai, Managing Director, Lloyds Finance Limited, II Floor, Viraj Impex House 47, P.D. Mellow Road, P.S. Masjid Bander, Mumbai – 400009 3. Mukesh R. Gupta, alias Mukesh Gupta, Son of Late Raj Narayan Gupta, II Floor, Viraj Impex House 47, P.D. Mellow Road, P.S. Masjid Bander, Mumbai – 400009 4. Vijay Kumar Singh , Son of Late Damodar Singh, Branch Manager, Lloyds Finance Limited, 1st Floor, III Jagat Trade Centre, Frazer Road, Patna 5. …. Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sisters of Charity of Nazarareth, Resident of East Boring Canal road, Patna, through its Treasurer Anupa Moozha … Opposite Parties ----------- Cr.Misc. No.23011 of 2005 1. Lloyds Finance Limited, through its Managing Director, namely Pankaj Desai, S/o Sri Ratilal Desai, II Floor, Viraj Implex House 47, P.D. Mellow Road, P.S. Masjid Bander, Mumbai – 400009 2. Pankaj Desai alias Pankaj R. Desai S/o Sri Ratilal Desai, Managing Director, Lloyds Finance Limited, II Floor, Viraj Implex House 47, P.D. Mellow Road, P.S. Masjid Bander, Mumbai – 400009 3. Mukesh R. Gupta, alias Mukesh Gupta, Son of Late Raj Narayan Gupta, II Floor, Viraj Implex House 47, P.D. Mellow Road, P.S. Masjid Bander, Mumbai – 400009 4. Vijay Kumar Singh , Son of Late Damodar Singh, Branch Manager, Lloyds Finance Limited, 1st Floor, III Jagat Trade Centre, Frazer Road, Patna …. Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Bhaskar son of Shri Sidheshwar Prasad Singh, C/o Bhaskar, Nalanda Colony, Khajpur, P.O. B.V. College, Patna 14. … Opposite Parties ----------- In Cr.Misc. No.15263 of 2005 For the Petitioners : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. J. Upadhayay, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate. ------ - 2 - In Cr.Misc. No.23011 of 2005 For the Petitioners : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. J. Upadhayay, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Mishra, Advocate. ----------- O R D E R 16 28.2.2009 Both these cases though arising out of different complaint cases have been taken up together and are being disposed of by a common order since the point of law involved in both cases and the petitioners in both cases are same. In Cr. Misc. No. 15263 of 2005 Lloyds Finance Limited and its officials of the managerial cadre are arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No. 235(C) of 2005 and cognizance has been taken against them under sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC vide order dated 25.2.2005 passed therein by Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, J.M. 1st Class, Patna. In Cr.Misc. No. 23011 of 2005 the same petitioners as of Cr. Misc. No. 15263 of 2005 have been arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No. 644 (C) of 2004, wherein cognizance has been taken against them under sections 403, 418 vide order dated 21.7.2004 passed by Sri Manoj Kumar, J.M. 1st Class, Patna and prayer have been made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in both the cases including the order taking cognizance. In both the cases the complainant – O.P. No. 2 were duly served with notice and have appeared by filing vakalatnama. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases that the principal amount in both the cases have been paid - 3 - to the complainant and only the payment of interest has been kept in abeyance in view of the pendency of the Company Petition No. 1017 of 2002 before the Bombay High Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners by drawing my attention to Annexure 27 in Cr. Misc. No. 15263 of 2005 and Annexure 11 in Cr.Misc. No. 23011 of 2005 has further submitted that the complainant in both cases have signed receipts acknowledging receipt of the principal amount in the light of the order passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Company Petition No. 1017 of 2002 and have also declared that their claim for payment of interest would abide by decision of the Bombay High Court in the said Company Petition. Since the principal amount of the complainants of both the cases have been paid in full and final settlement thereof and the payment of interest remains subject matter of decision of Company Petition No. 1017 of 2002 pending before the Bombay High Court no gainful purpose would be served by keeping these applications pending any longer. In view of the facts and circumstances and the developments that have taken place as detailed in foregoing paragraphs, no gainful purpose would be served by keeping these applications pending. Accordingly both the applications are allowed and the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 235(C) of 2005 and Complaint Case No. 644 (C) of 2004 are hereby quashed. Quashing of the applications would automatically mean that the impugned orders taking cognizance stands quashed. - 4 - In the result both the applications are allowed. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)