CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.17721 OF 2006 In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. AKASH KHURANA, S/o – Abnash Chandra Khurana, )NIMBUS MOTION PICTURE) of Division of NIMBUS CENTRE, Oberai Complex Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 053. -----------------Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sudhir Kumar, S/o – Sri Sarju Prasad, Prop. M/s Chandra Sudhir Films Pvt. Ltd. situated at 15-Narmada Apartment, Exhibition Road, Police Station – Gandhi Maidan, District – Patna. --------------Opposite Parties. For the petitioner : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anuj Prakash, Adv. For the State : Mr. Atul Chandra, APP. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ******* Akhilesh Chandra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. None appeared on behalf of the complainant opposite party no.2 inspite of service of notice earlier in this case. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the entire proceeding including order dated 17.06.2005, passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, taking cognizance for the offences under section 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code in complaint case no. 785C/2005. 3. Complainant opposite party no.2 deals with business of film distribution to whom petitioner’s company approached for distribution of a film under making and there 2 was agreement for such distribution under the territories of Bihar and Jharkhand, accordingly, the complainant in two installments advance Rs. 3.5 lakhs, but due to some reasons production of the film was delayed and the complainant could not be replied satisfactorily of his queries about developments so under compelling circumstances lodged the complaint before the court below wherein after examining the complainant and other witnesses cognizance was taken giving rise to this application. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a case of civil nature wherein complainant opposite party no.2 undoubtedly advanced an amount in terms of agreement and petitioner’s company could not comply its part on the reasons beyond their control. It is further pointed out that the petitioner while present for privilege of anticipatory bail from this court in Cr. Misc. No. 16701/2006 has already offered and paid the amount of Rs. 3.5 lakhs so advanced by the complainant. Thus, the money which was paid by the complainant has already been returned to him perhaps this is the reason for non-appearance of opposite party no.2. 5. On going through copy of order of this court in Cr. Misc. No. 16701/2006, learned Additional Public Prosecutor also concedes the submissions as regard to payment of amount by the petitioner to the complainant opposite party no.2. 6. From the plain reading of the complaint petition 3 from nowhere it appears that there was any intention to cheat the complainant opposite party no.2 rather as per an agreement money was advanced and it is well known fact that in film making delay often plays it role and for the reasons beyond control, the predecessors and other connected persons failed to complete the film within time schedule. So only due to some delay caused requirement for commission of the offence of cheating etc. cannot be fulfilled. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances, if further proceedings of the court below in complaint case no. 785C/2005 is permitted to continue, it shall be nothing but abuse of the process of law and sheer wastage of precious judicial time. 8. Accordingly, impugned order as well as complaint case no. 785C/2005 both are hereby quashed and this application stands allowed. Patna High Court Date : The 9th September 2010 Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)