IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41263 of 2008 1. VIJAY KUMAR SINGH @ VIJAY KUMAR SON OF LATE DAMODAR SINGH, BRANCH MANAGER, LLOYDS FINANCE LIMITED, 103 R.P. TOWER, FRAZER ROAD, TOWN P.S.- KOTWALI, DISTRICT- PATNA- 800001. 2. RAJENDRA A. SHAH, S/O- LATE AMBALAL SHAH LLOYDS FINANCE LTD, II FLOOR, SAVIDHYA COMPLEX, OPP SANYAS ASHRAM ASHARANI ROAD, AHMADABAD. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHRI SHEO CHARAN PRASAD,, SON OF SHRI MUNI LAL SAO, R/O- WAKERGANJ, DALDALI ROAD, P.S.- KADAMKUAN, TOWN AND DISTRICT- PATNA(COMPLAINANT) 4 25.11.2010 Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned A.P.P. representing the State. No body has appeared on behalf of O.P. No. 2. The present application has been filed by the officials of Lloyds Finance Ltd. questioning the continuance of the criminal proceeding against them including sustainability of the order dated 1.2.2004 whereby the F.I.R. lodged in the case, was sent to the Court and registered. Petitioners are in fact challenging the lodgment of the F.I.R. being Kotwali P.S. case no. 49/2004 instituted under Sections 406, 420 IPC. Prosecution case, as set out in the F.I.R., in brief, is that M/S Lloyds Finance Ltd. (for short the Company) is a non-banking institution of which petitioner No. 1 was the Branch Manager whereas petitioner No. 2 was Executive Vice President. It is the prosecution case that one of the agents of the said company persuaded the informant to deposit a sum of Rs. 6,000/- on 19.12.1996 under receipt. The amount was to mature on - 2 - 19.11.2000. On 20.11.2000, the informant contacted the Company for the maturity amount but the same was not paid whereafter the accused were put on notice which was replied evasively. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged which was registered as an F.I.R. under the orders of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that several hundreds of such complaints/F.I.Rs were lodged against the Company and its officials. Bombay High Court intervened in the matter and a Special Committee was constituted for improving the affairs of the Company and to take efforts and with the efforts of the Special Committee, the Company has been able to pay off the dues of several depositors. On payment of the amount claimed by the different complainants/informants, the proceeding initiated at their instance, have already been quashed. He has produced two such orders passed by this Court. In Cr. Misc. No. 42312/2005 (Vijay Kumar Singh versus the State of Bihar) the entire criminal prosecution was quashed as continuance thereof was deemed unwarranted in law and abuse of the process of the Court. Referring to the averments made in paragraph 44 and Annexure- 27, it has been contended that the complainant/informant has already been paid off all the due amount and a receipt has already been issued by her in respect of full and final settlement regarding fixed deposit made by her. It is contended that having regard to the aforesaid fact, this Court also passed identical order in Cr. Misc. No. 35243/2008 (LLOUDS FINANCE LIMITED & Ors versus - 3 - State of Bihar & Anr). A copy of the aforesaid order has been produced by learned counsel for the petitioner which is kept on record marked as “Y”. A bare perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that taking note of the aforesaid fact appearing from the record, the entire criminal proceeding was quashed. It is the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court in view of the previous orders passed on identical facts should quash the entire proceeding. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, on perusal of a copy of the order dated 11.8.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 35243/2008 (marked “Y”) as also Cr. Misc. No. 42312/2005 (Vijay Kumar Singh versus The State of Bihar) does not dispute the submission that continuance of the proceeding, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would be sheer abuse of the processes of court and unnecessary drain on the court’s time. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the parties and after going through the materials on record including the previous orders passed by this Court on similar/identical applications, this Court is satisfied that the entire criminal proceeding arising out of the Kotwali P.S. case no. 49/2004 be quashed and set aside. I order accordingly. pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J)