JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner herein arrayed as accused no. 4 in Complaint Case No. 1789(C) of 1999 has prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom including the order dated 24.2.2000 passed therein by Sri S.P. Mishra, the erstwhile Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, whereby he has taken cognizance under Sections 403, 409 and 420 IPC against all the accused including the petitioner. 2. One Daya Shankar Tiwary, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, filed the aforesaid complaint on 24.12.1999 inter alia alleging that he had purchased some shares from the Stock Exchange which had been misplaced and that when he entered into correspondences with the concerned companies there was no response at all from their end. He apprehended that the companies had misappropriated their respective shares. 3. The submission of the petitioner is that notwithstanding the complainant having filed an application in the court below for dropping the proceedings against the petitioner herein as all his grievance had been redressed fully, was not interested in prosecuting the complaint against the present petitioner and would not produce any evidence against him, the same had not been disposed of by the court below. The original copy of an affidavit before a Notary Public at Patna and a photocopy of a demand draft of Syndicate Bank of the face value of Rs. 25,000/- payable to the complainant has been produced at the time of hearing. 4. The learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 does not dispute the position and submits that with his grievances having been redressed he was not interested in persuing the lis against the petitioner herein. 5. Admittedly the proceeding in the court below arises out of a complaint petition for alleged offences under Sections 403, 409 and 420 IPC. Now if the very complainant feels that his grievances have been redressed and he does not wish to prosecute the case as against the petitioner there is no point in continuing with the case. It would definitely be an exercise in futility since with the complainant not leading evidence the chances of conviction could be bleak. 6. Due regard being had to the situation at hand where there is no chance of any conviction the continuance of the proceeding as against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the court and meaningless wastage of courts time. 7. 6. Due regard being had to the situation at hand where there is no chance of any conviction the continuance of the proceeding as against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the court and meaningless wastage of courts time. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order so far as the petitioner is concerned, is quashed and the application is allowed.