IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1654 of 2008 VIJAY KUMAR & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr.Ashwani Kumar Singh, Sr.Advocate Mr.Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhayay, A.P.P. 5 26.4.2010 A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners. No one appears on behalf of Opposite party no.2 despite service of notice. The petitioners seek quashing the order dated 12.9.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Kadamkuan (Kankarbagh) P.S. Case No.7 of 2006, whereby he has taken cognizance of offence under sections 406, 420, 467 and 468 of the Penal Code against the petitioners. It is alleged by the informant that he had given a sum of Rs.10,25,000.00 to the accused persons on different dates in pursuation of deed of agreement to sell. However, despite payment of Rs.10,25,000/- the accused persons did not execute the deed of sale. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid sum of Rs.10,25,000.00 has been returned to the informant. In fact, the informant is no longer interested in purchasing the portion of the land for which he had earlier given the aforesaid amount. The informant has already encashed the Bank draft given by the petitioners. He further submits that the dispute appears to be a civil nature and the Opposite party no.2 has also remedy by way of civil 2 KHAN suit for specific performance of contract if he is so advised. In support of his contention he has relied upon decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Murari Lal Gupta Vs Gopi Singh, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 699 and Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors Vs State of Bihar & anr, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751. In the back drop of the aforesaid fact, this court finds that no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution case to continue as the informant-Opposite party no.2 has already received his money. The impugned order taking cognizance dated 12.9.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Kadamkuan (Kankarbagh) P.S. Case No.7 of 2006 is quashed. In the result, this application is allowed. (S.P.Singh,J)