IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.915 of 2007 KHUDIRAM MANDAL Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5 1.7.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.9.2005 taking cognizance under Section 406, 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that the petitioner is said to have defalcated the amount of Rs. 7,000/-deposited by the informant. On the basis of the said facts a certificate case was filed before the District Co- operative Officer-cum-Certificate Officer, Katihar. In the said case by order dated 5.1.2005 it is quite clear that the claim of the petitioner that due to clerical mistake he could not grant receipt has been accepted and the petitioner along with co-accused Bishwanath Mandal has already been ordered to deposit the amount of 7,000/- and interest of 3,780/-. Accordingly the petitioner and the co-accused deposited the said amount in the Bairiya Primary Agriculture co-operative Soceity Bank Limited vide annexure- 4/1 and 4/2. Thus it appears that the grievances of the informant have been redressed and the money which he has deposited in the bank has been deposited along with the interest. Therefore, the continuation of the present case under Section 406, 420, 467 and 468 would actually amount to wasting the time of the Court as the money has already been deposited in the bank where it was to be deposited and it is for this 2 reason that opposite party no. 2 has not appeared to defend the application even though notices were issued to the opposite parties no. 2 to 9 and were validly served on them. As a consequence of the facts that the alleged amount has already deposited in the bank, it would be a futile exercise to continue with the case and as such the order taking cognizance dated 5.9.2005 in Amdabad P.S. Case No. 4 of 2005 is quashed. This application is thus allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)