CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.24569 OF 2005 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1. LLOYDS FINANCE LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NAMELY, PANKAJ DESAI, SON OF RATILAL DESAI, II FLOOR, VIRAJ IMPEX, HOUSE – 47, P.D. MELLOW ROAD, P.S. MASJID BANDER, MUMBAI – 400 009. 2. PANKAJ DESAI @ PANKAJ R. DESAI, SON OF SHRI RATILAL DESAI, MANAGING DIRECTOR, LIOYDS FINANCE LIMITED, II FLOOR, VIRAJ IMPEX, HOUSE – 47, P.D. MELLOW ROAD, P.S. MASJID BANDER, MUMBAI – 400 009. 3. MUKESH R. GUPTA, ALIAS MUKESH GUPTA, SON OF RAJ NARAYAN GUPTA, EX-MANAGING DIRECTOR, LIOYDS FINANCE LIMITED, II FLOOR, VIRAJ IMPEX, HOUSE – 47, P.D. MELLOW ROAD, P.S. MASJID BANDER, MUMBAI – 400 009. 4. RAJESH R. GUPTA, SON OF LATE RAJ NARAYAN GUPTA, EX-DIRECTOR, LIOYDS FINANCE LIMITED, II FLOOR, VIRAJ IMPEX, HOUSE – 47, P.D. MELLOW ROAD, P.S. MASJID BANDER, MUMBAI – 400 009. 5. VIJAY KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE DAMODAR SINGH, BRANCH MANAGER, LIOYDS FINANCE LIMITED, 1ST FLOOR, III JAGAT TRADE CENTRE, FRAZER ROAD, PATNA. ------- Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MRS. SHAMIMA ASHRAF, WIFE OF ASHRAFUDDIN AHMAD, RESIDENT OF 2 SHARIF COLONY, PATNA – 800 006, P.S. PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT – PATNA (COMPLAINANT). ---------Opposite Parties. **** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA **** Akhilesh Chandra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of order dated 01.04.2005 passed by Shri Satyendra Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. - 2 - 3029(C)/2004 taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 403 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner is a non- banking finance company with whom complainant opposite party no.2 got a sum of Rs. 15,000/- deposited in two separate deposits on 15.07.1997 but when the maturity amount of Rs. 30,000/- could not be paid on 15.04.2001, the instant case was filed wherein cognizance was taken. 4. It is admitted that petitioner’s company already paid the principal amount to opposite party no.2 and also paid the amount for which the cheque was bounced. Only question of due interest till it is actual payment now remains in controversy. 5. During the course of argument, through different annexures, it is brought into notice that Bombay High Court is in control of the controversy relating to different finance company (non-banking) including the petitioner in Company Petition Case No. 1017 of 2002 different orders have been passed from time to time and under the prescribed/approved scheme, - 3 - the company has been making payment against deposits to the investors. At initial stage, principal investment is being returned to the depositors and thereafter as per direction of the court interest accrued shall be paid. 6. In view of the above undisputed position and pendency of the matter before Mumbai High Court in case No. 1017 of 2002 wherein orders are expected on the point of payment of interest only thereafter further payment is to be made by the petitioners towards interest, there appears no necessity to proceed with the case pending before the court below. 7. Accordingly, it is quashed with a liberty to the opposite party no.2 to initiate a fresh proceeding in case of non-compliance of the direction of Mumbai High Court by the petitioners on the payment of interest. Patna High Court Dated : The 4th November 2010 Rajeev/ N.A.F.R. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)