CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.6957 OF 2005 ******* In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ******* SHRI G.R.JAIN @ GAJRAJ JAIN---------Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR----------------Opp.Party ******* For the Petitioner : Mr. Arbind Kr. Jha For the State : Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA Akhilesh Chandra, J Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. There is none on behalf of the Opposite Party despite of waiting for a reasonable period. 2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of order dated 22nd March, 2001 passed in Complaint Case no. 992 C of 2000 taking cognizance of the offences under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code by Sri A.L. Yadav, Judicial 2 Magistrate, First Class, Sasaram, Rohtas, 3. The three persons named as accused the petitioner figured at serial no.1` in the complaint petition as Chairman of Chandra Prabhu International. Rest of the two accused persons, non-petitioner are named as office bearers of Aditya Flour Mills Private Limited. As per the complainant, who has the business in the name and style of M/s Laxmi Bhandar, Balidih and as per offer received through accused no.2 and 3 supplied four trucks of wheat worth Rs.4,33,485/- through different permit numbers mentioned in the complaint petition on the assurances to get the amount soon after receipt of the commodity but inspite of assurance and receiving the commodity they failed to make any comment rather on personal contacts through Agents they redirected the matter to the petitioner who, as mentioned in paragraph 8 of the complaint at Delhi assured early payment. But again nothing could be done. Ultimately, on 26th September, 2000, all the named accused persons refused to make any payment, complaint case has been filed. 3 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has no concern with M/S. Adity Flour Mills Private Limited, with whom the complainant said to have entered into in agreement and supply he commodities. Of course, in the year 1994 for about ten months the petitioner was Director of the Company but resigned in the year 1995 itself as will appear from Annexures=2 and 2/A, the copies of Form-32. But, since after the year 1995, on the day of resignation, petitioner has got no concern with the Company. It is also submitted that no offence is made out against the petitioner and he has wrongly been dragged into the complaint case as one of the accused. 5. There is no denial to the statements made by the petitioner in his petition and also submitted here that he has no concern with M/s Adity Flour Mills Private Limited and whatever agreement was with the complainant it was with the said Mill and its authorities, on the one hand, and the complainant, at the other. Petitioner’s concern that the entire affairs has not been mentioned in the complaint petition also rather he has 4 been made accused in his independent capacity as Director of another concern and if at the instance of other persons, named in the complaint petition as accused the complainant approached the petitioner as stated in the complaint petition and he returned him on the assurance that payment will be made soon, no offence against the petitioner is made out unless and until he got any connection with M/s Adity Flour Mills Private Limited, to whom, as stated, commodity was supplied. 6. In similar circumstances, in the case of Gajraj Jain V. State of Jharkhand & Anr. : W.P. (Cr.) No.242 of 2005, the petitioner was exonerated by the Jharkhand High court vide order dated 10th August, 2006 wherein also his appointment and resignation from the position of Director of M/s Adity Flour Mills Private Limited was considered. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances, in absence of anything otherwise on behalf of the petitioner, opposite party no.2 evaded making any statement or even filing counter affidavit, continuation of further proceeding with respect to the petitioner shall 5 be nothing but abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the impugned order, to the extent of petitioner, is quashed. Petition stands allowed. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) Patna High Court, The 09th August, 2010. AAhmad/(NAFR).