IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18174 of 1999 DR.RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA, S/O LATE RAMDAS SAHU, R/O MOHALLA-BAJRANGPURI (GULZARBAGH), P.S.ALAMGANJ, PATNA-7…………………………………..………………………….PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. BRAJESH CHOUDHARY S/O TARKESHWAR PD.CHOUDHARY, R/O MOHALLA-MURADPUR, P.S.PIRBAHORE, DIST-PATNA………...……….OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For petitioner:- Mr. Rashid Izhar, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, APP ---------- 4. 28-Apr-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Although the complainant, O.P. No.2 has appeared and the name of his counsels are printed in the daily cause list, no body appears on his behalf. 3. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 39 of 1998 pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patnacity, Patna and also quashing of order rejecting petitioner’s prayer for discharge passed on 17.7.1999. 4. From the complaint petition and other materials on record it has been shown that the complainant raised a simple grievance through a - 2 - compliant filed in the year 1998 that the petitioner refused to pay the balance amount of Rs.1720/- and service charge of Rs.100/- for a Neon Sign Board whose total cost was Rs. 7320/-. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present complaint case is false, frivolous and has been filed mala fide only to pressurize the petitioner not to pursue his case before the District Consumer Forum, Patna which was filed on 20th of August, 1997 against the complainant. In support of this fact the complaint filed before the District Forum has been annexed as Annexure-4. In course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before this Court a copy of order of the District Forum, Patna passed on the complaint of the petitioner bearing Complaint Case No. 491/1997. That has been kept on record. That order dated 29.7.1999 shows that the District Forum found merit in the complaint of the petitioner and allowed the consumer complaint case by directing the complainant to refund the total amount of Rs.7320/- along with a further amount of Rs.2000 by way of compensation. - 3 - 6. There is no counter affidavit to rebut the facts appearing from Annexure-4 which is annexed with the quashing application. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the present case has been filed with ulterior motives and mala fide reasons. Allowing such a prosecution to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding including the impugned order dated 17.7.1999 are hereby quashed. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.)