1 CRIMINAL MISCELLENEOUS No. 6231 OF 2002 ***** ( In the matter of application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ) ****** 1. RAMESHWAR JHA, SON OF LATE KUSHESHWAR JHA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MITHILA COLONY, POLICE STATION DANAPUR, DISTRICT PATNA …………………………………….. ……………………….....……..…...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAI RAGHUWANSHANI, SON OF LATE NAGESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF BATUKESHWAR DUTTA LANE, NEW JAKKANPUR, POLICE STATION JAKKANPUR, DISTRICT PATNA ………………………………………………..……………… OPPOSITE PARTIES ******************** FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. DURGANAND JHA, ADV. FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. JHARKHANDI UPADHYAY, A.P.P. *********** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN O R D E R Sheema Ali Khan, J. The petitioner has come before this Court for quashing of the order dated 22.09.2000 passed in Complaint Case No. 1636 (C) of 2000 by which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna has taken cognizance for the offences under Section 406, 420, 506 & 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleges that his wife Sidhanti Devi had deposited certain amount of money with Mithila Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti which amount is Rs. 11,000/- & odd. It is also said that another Rs. 7,000/- was deposited with the petitioner for the purpose of 2 registration of the land which was to be transferred by the Co-operative Society in favour of the complainant’s wife. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 1989, an Administrator was appointed for the Co-operative Society, who was Incharge of the affairs of the Society. Since 2004, a regular committee is working and functioning & managing the affairs of the Society. Apparently, the complainant had entered into a compromise with the Ex-President of the Society. It would also appear that Sidhanti Dvi has filed Complaint Case No. 362 (C) of 2001 against the Society on the same set of allegations. Since the wife who is the person supposed to have been affected by the non-performance of the contract between her and the Co-operative Society, is pursuing her remedy by filing a complaint, it would not be proper that for the same offence, the petitioner should also face a trial. 3. Accordingly, I quash the order of cognizance dated 22.09.2001 passed in Complaint Case No. 1636 (C) of 2000 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna 4. In the result, this application is allowed. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. ) PATNA HIGH COURT DATED, THE 20th JANUARY, 2011 N.A.F.R./ANAND