CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.21999 OF 2005 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) * * * * * INDRAJEET SINGH, Son of Late Madanjeet Singh, Director, M/S Ashiana Land Development and Project Private Limited, Ashiana Tower, Exhibition Road, Police Station Gandhi Maidan, District & Town Patna. ..........Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DHARMENDRA KUMAR, Son of Ramendra Prasad Narain Singh, Resident of Flat No. F-74 Amawan Block Krishna Apartment, Boring Road, opposite A.N.College, Patna-1. ...........Opposite parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pushpee Sinha, A.P.P. * * * * * P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA * * * * * Akhilesh Chandra,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Manoj Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, the complainant. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of Complaint Case No. 498 C of 1996 along with order dated 04.1.1996 taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 379 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by Sri Rajesh - 2 - Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna besides order dated 07.01.2005 passed by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Criminal Revision No. 552 of 1996 affirming the order of the court below. 3. Undisputedly, the complaint case was filed by the opposite party no. 2 when some differences cropped up between opposite party and the developers of one apartment known as ‘Krishna Apartment’ at Boring Road, Patna and complaint was filed for the offences under Sections 34, 143, 147, 149, 380, 451 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, but going through the materials cognizance was taken only for the offence under Sections 379 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Counter affidavit has also been filed in this case on 20.09.2006 clearly stating therein that the dispute has already been settled and parties have compromised the matter and opposite party no. 2 is no now longer interested in further proceeding of the complaint filed by him. 5. During course of submissions, it is pointed out from the Bar that only because amount mentioned in the complaint petition has gone beyond the limit of making - 3 - offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code compoundable, but if the further proceeding before the court below is permitted to continue only on that ground no useful purpose shall be served rather any further proceeding shall be nothing, but abuse of process of law and sheer wastage of precious judicial time. 6. Finding myself with the agreement with the submissions made above, the entire proceeding before the court below is hereby quashed and this application stands disposed of. Patna High Court Dated: 21st September, 2010 Praveen/- (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)