CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6558 OF 2000 With CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7266 OF 2000 ------- In the matter of an applicationsunder section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------ V. K. BANSAL son of late J.D.Bansal, President, J.M.Share & Stock Broker Limited, 141, Maker Chambers-III, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 ……. ……. Petitioner in Cr.Misc. No.6558/2000 ANIL S. MARVINKURVE @ ANIL MARVINKURVE @ Anil Marvinkurve son of late S.D.Marvinkurve, Vice President, Head Of Syndication, J.M.Share & Stock Broker Limited, 141, Maker Chambers-III, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 …….. ……. Petitioner in Cr.Misc. No.7266/2000 Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Akhileshwar Upadhyay, son of Shri Ramjee Upadhyay, resident of 49, MIGH, Lohiya Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna-20 …….. …….Opp.Parties in both the cases -------- For the petitioners: Mr.S.D.Sanjay & Mr.Gopal Pd. Gupta For Opp. Party No.2.: Mr.Janardan Prasad Singh For the State: Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, A.P.P. -------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---------- Rakesh Kumar,J. Mr.Janardan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 files a counter affidavit in Cr.Misc. No.7266 of 2000. Keep it on the record. 2. In both the above cases order of cognizance dated 4.5.1999 passed by Sri Anil Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No.298C of 1999 is under challenge and, as such, both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2 3. On 18.8.2010 when the case was called out, it was jointly prayed to adjourn the case since out side the court settlement had already arrived at in between the parties and only some formalities were to be done. Accordingly, the case was adjourned. 4. Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 submits that now the dispute has finally been settled in between the parties and opposite party no.2 states that he will not purse the present case and has got no objection if the petition is allowed and criminal proceedings against accused no.1 and its officials in this case are quashed in the interest of justice. 5. In view of subsequent development, during the pendency of the present petition, this court considers that no purpose would be served by allowing the proceeding in Complaint Case No.293C of 1999 to proceed further. I have perused the statements made by opposite party no.2 in the counter affidavit filed today in the court in Cr.Misc. No.7266 of 2000 particularly paragraphs 3 and 4 of the petition which are as follows: Paragraph 3: That the Answering Opposite Party further states that the matter was discussed with the Management of the Accused No.1 Company in this case & its Officials, and the matter has been settled out of Court, and the grievance of the Complainant has been redressed to their fullest satisfaction on receipt of payment of 3 Patna High Court The 30th August,2010 Md.S.NAFR commission, in question. Paragraph 4: That the Answering Opposite Party states that they are now left with no grievance to oppose this Application, and have no objection if this Application is allowed and the Criminal Proceedings against the Accused No.1 & its Officials in this case are quashed in the interest of justice. 6. For the ends justice it is just and proper to quash the order of cognizance. Accordingly, order of cognizance dated 4.5.1999 passed by Shri Anil Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 298C of 1999 is hereby set aside and both the petitions are allowed. (Rakesh Kumar,J.)