IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12034 of 2009 GHULAM MUJTAFA KHAN @ GULAM MUSTAFA KHAN, son of Late Ghulam Murtaba Khan, residentof Kalpana Rest House compound Sri Krishna Road, P.S. – Civil Lines, District – Gaya. -------------- petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Meena Devi, wife of Sri Rajendra Prasad, resident of village – Dangra, P.S. – Mohanpur, District – Gaya. ----------- Opposite Parties. ******* For the petitioner : Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP. ******* 04. 05.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. None appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. On the previous date, though opposite party no.2 is in appearance through learned lawyer whose name is appearing in the daily list. This is an application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing or order dated 25.09.2008 passed by Sri Anil Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya in complaint case no. 1284/2008/1389/2008 taking cognizance for the offence under section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The relevant brief facts of this case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint alleging that in spite of entering into an agreement and filing of compromise petition in money suit as well as criminal proceeding. The accused persons the petitioner did not pay the amount agreed rather had bad intentions since before on receipt of the complaint and recording statement of - 2 - complainant on Solemn Affirmation during inquiry, the court below took cognizance giving rise to instant application. As per terms of the compromise entered into between the parties the petition had already paid Rs. two lacs to the complainant opposite party no.2 and remaining Rs. 2.5 lacs was to be paid latest by 036.02.2009 in easy installments, but the petitioner after lapse of a month form due date got a draft prepared in the name of complainant offered to pay the same which was not accepted as even prior to such happenings the case before the court below was lodged. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- through account payee bank draft to the complainant opposite party no.2 positively by 30th October 2010 before the court below subject to any order of competent civil court in terms of decision, if, in or any proceeding arising out of Money Suit No. 8/2007. In face of such offer and deposit, further proceeding before the court below shall nothing but abuse of process of law and on the event of deposit of Rs. 2,75,000/- as ordered positively on or before 30th October 2010, proceeding before the court below shall quashed. In the event of failure on such deposit during stipulated period, the petition shall not only be liable to pay the amount but also face the criminal prosecution as it is. - 3 - Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below through Fax at the cost of petitioner. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)