Kishun @ Ranjan Kumar @ Ranjan @ Ranjan Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81446 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-529 Year-2016 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== KISHUN @ RANJAN KUMAR @ RANJAN @ RANJAN PRASAD Son of Anup Rai Resident of village- Vigrahpur, Near Bank Colony, Indranagar, P.S.- Jakkanpur, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Ram Nigah Singh Son of Late Ram Babu Singh Resident of MohallaBibiganj Parwati Market, P.S.- Danapur, District- Patna. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dewendra Narayan Singh, Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Khare, A.P.P.

For the O.P. No. 2 :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Ramakant Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-11-2023

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 02.11.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Danapur, Patna in Complaint Case No. 529(C) of 2016 whereby cognizance of the offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act has been taken.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case in between the petitioner and the complainant has been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81446 of 2019(4) dt.29-11-2023 2/2 compromised and the entire payment has been made for which the cheque was issued.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 concurs with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that he has instruction to make submissions that the opposite party no. 2 will not oppose the quashing application, in the event if it is quashed.

5. Since the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 concurs with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and is not opposing the quashing application and it has been submitted that the entire money has been paid to the opposite party no. 2 for which the cheque was issued, as such, the order dated 02.11.2016, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Danapur, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 529(C) of 2016, whereby cognizance of the offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was taken, is hereby quashed.

6. Accordingly, this application stands allowed. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T