IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36193 of 2005 1. LIOYDS FINANCE LTD. THRU. ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR PANKAJ DESAI 2. PANKAJ DESAI @ PANKAJ R. DESAI SON OF SRI RATILAL DESAI 3. MUKESH R. GUPTA ALIAS MUKESH GUPTA SON OF LATE RAJ NARAYAN GUPTA 4. VIJAY KUMAR SINGH @ BIJAY SINGH SON OF LATE DAMODAR SINGH Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAMESH CHANDRA ROY SON OF LATE DEV NANDAN ROY. For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar For the State : A.P.P. ----------- 16. 02.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2. Complaint case no. 941C of 2005 was filed under Sections 406, 420 of the Penal Code by opposite party no. 2. The allegations were that the petitioners were office bearers of M/S Lloyds Finance Ltd. They conspired to earn illegal benefit and cause themselves wrong gain. They established a fake and forged company for cheating the public, illegally retained the maturity payment of the fixed deposit made by persons like the complainant. They had approached him and highlighted the scheme in which opposite party no. 2 invested in the company on promise of 15% interest. After maturity the company refused to pay the principal amount with interest. Assailing the order of cognizance dated 16.5.2005, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that M/S Lloyds Finance Ltd. is an incorporated company. On 16.4.1999 in view of the inability of the Company to honour its commitments, the Company Law Board in exercise of powers under Section 450A(2) 2 of the R.B.I. Act rescheduled the payment to be made to the depositors along with interest. The schedule was revised subsequently. The Bombay High Court declined winding up proceedings and on the contrary passed certain orders for deposit of certain amount to enable payment to the depositors. In the aforesaid background, a supplementary affidavit has been filed that the principal amount of Rs. 23,642/- mentioned in the complaint as the investment made by opposite party no. 2 has been paid to opposite party no. 2 by demand draft no. 147592 and 147593 dated 24.5.2007. This submission on oath is not opposed by anybody appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2. The submission on behalf of the petitioners is that in so far as the claim for interest is concerned that is a matter to be scheduled in terms of the direction of the Bombay High Court in Company petition no. 1017 of 2002. On the previous occasion, time was granted to opposite party no. 2 to hand over a representation to learned counsel for the petitioners for payment of interest and placing the same before the Special Committee constituted in terms of the order of the Bombay High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that opposite party no. 2 has not handed over any copy of such representation to him. In view of the fact that principal deposit amount has 3 been repaid, the claim for interest is pending consideration to be scheduled in terms of certain orders of Bombay High Court by the Special Committee and that opposite party no. 2 has chosen not to appear much less to give a copy of representation for interest to the counsel for the petitioner in terms of the order dated 11.12.2008, this Court is satisfied that no useful purpose shall be served by permitting the present prosecution to continue. The entire prosecution of the petitioner in Complaint Case No. 941 (C) of 2005 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna is hereby quashed. The application stands allowed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)