IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35243 of 2008 1. LlOUDS 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. Masjit Bander, Mumbai-400009 2. Mukesh R.Gupta @ Mukesh Gupta son of Raj Narayan Gupta, Ex-Chairman Lloyds Finance Ltd. II floor, Viraj Impex house-47 P.D. Mellow Road, P.S. Masjid Bander, Mumbai-400009 3. Pankaj Desai @ Pankaj Gosai @ Pankaj R. Desai, son of shri Ratilal Desai, Managing Director, Lloyds Finance Limited, II floor, Viraj Implex, House 47, P.D.Mellow Road, P.S.Masjid Bander, Mumbai-400009. ---Petitioners. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Deepak Kumar Mahajan son of late Tilak Raj Mahajan, resident of Mahajan Niwas Wakerganj, Natraj Gali, P.S.Pirbahore, Dist. Patna-4 -- opp.parties. ----------- 03 11.08.2010 Mr. Manish Kumar learned counsel representing petitioners and Dr. Mayanand Jha representing the State are present. Heard. The present application has been filed by the Finance Company called Lloyds Finance Limited and some of its officers. They seek to challenge the continuance of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of complaint case no. 365(c) of 2001, including the order dated 30.03.2001, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patna, whereby cognizance under diverse Sections of the Penal Code was taken. It is agreed at the Bar that several criminal proceedings of identical nature filed at the instance of the depositors have been 2 quashed by this Court, considering the developments that had taken place during pendency of the application. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention of the Court to the averments made in paragraph nos. 44 and 45 of the present application which read as under:- “44. That a petition for dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners was filed under section 205 of the Cr. P.C. on 6.7.2001 as the entire sum amounting to Rs. 2,15,369/- was paid to the complainant-opposite party vide Bank-drafts no. 767429 and 767430 towards final settlement of the dispute with his full satisfaction. 45. That, as stated above, all the money due to be payable to the complainant has already been paid.” It is stated that this Court, in Cr. Misc. no. 12920 of 2004 (Vijay Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar & ors.), having regard to these facts has already quashed the entire proceedings including the order taking cognizance. It is also submitted that in similar circumstance, proceedings have been quashed in Cr. Misc. no. 35165 of 2004 (Vijay Kumar Singh and anr. Vs. the State of Bihar & anr.), Cr. Misc. no. 9481 of 2003 (Vijay Kumar Singh vs. the State of Bihar & anr.) and Cr. Misc. no. 4768 of 2005 ( Vijay Kumar Singh & anr. Vs. State of Bihar & anr.). Learned counsel for the State does not dispute the aforesaid submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. In spite of valid service of notice, the complainant has not chosen to appear in this proceeding to contest the application and the prayer made therein. Consequently, for the reasons assigned by this Court in Cr. Misc. no. 12920 of 2004 (Vijay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar & ors.), this Court, in exercise of its inherent 3 power, quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of complaint case no. 365 ( c) of 2001 including the order taking cognizance dated 30.03.2001, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,Patna. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)