JUDGEMENT 1. In view of order dated 13.4.2010, Sri Pankaj Maijorwar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 files counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no. 2. Keep it on record. 2. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 25.5.2005 passed in Complaint Case No. 1182(C) of 2003. By the said order, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Short fact of the case is that the complainant filed the complaint petition vide Complaint Case No. 1182(C) of 2003 alleging therein that petitioner no. 2 on behalf of petitioner no. 1 approached the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,45,000/- with the Company i.e. Lloyds Finance Ltd. and on his persuasion, he deposited the amount. However, after majority (sic maturity ?), he could receive only Rs. 64,000/-and the petitioners after being satisfied that he was cheated by accused persons filed the present complaint petition and in complaint petition, he was examined on S.A. and in his support, witnesses were also examined and thereafter, by the impugned order i.e. order dated 25.5.2004, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences as mentioned above. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, both the petitioners approached this Court by way of filing the present petition. While issuing notice to opposite party no. 2 vide order dated 27.4.2005, this Court had directed that in the meantime, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners and said interim order is still continuing. 4. Shri Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the intention of petitioners were never to cheat the complainant, but in course of business, the Company in question suffered a huge loss and due to that reason, the Company was not in a position to repay the amount to its depositors within prescribed time. However, the petitioners took sincere step to refund all dues of the complainant and thereafter, even during the pendency of this petition, the entire dues of complainant was cleared. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. However, the petitioners took sincere step to refund all dues of the complainant and thereafter, even during the pendency of this petition, the entire dues of complainant was cleared. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has filed counter affidavit and has accepted that the entire dues has already been cleared and complainant now is not interested to further pursue the complaint case. He submits that compromise petition was filed before the court below. However, no order has been passed. 5. In view of the changed circumstances, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that no purpose would be served by allowing to keep the matter pending before the court below and virtually, it will amount to allowing abuse of the process of the court and as such he has made a submission to quash the order of cognizance and all subsequent proceedings. 6. In view of earlier order, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has filed supplementary affidavit disclosing therein that number of cases were instituted against the petitioners Company. In some cases, F.I.Rs. were lodged and some complaint petitions were lodged, but in most of the cases, the order has been passed for closing the cases. Learned counsel for the petitioners, by way of filing another supplementary affidavit, has brought on record different orders passed by this Court in respect of the present petitioner in the similar facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. I have perused the order dated 6.8.2007 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 4768 of 2005, order dated 7.7.2008 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 15646 of 2005, order dated 16.8.2007 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 5927 of 2005, order dated 25.11.2005 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 35135 of 2004 and order dated 7.2.2006 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 12920 of 2004, which have been enclosed alongwith supplementary affidavits. On perusal of the aforesaid orders, it is evident that in similar circumstances, this Court, even while exercise power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has set aside the order of cognizance. 8. Misc. No. 35135 of 2004 and order dated 7.2.2006 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 12920 of 2004, which have been enclosed alongwith supplementary affidavits. On perusal of the aforesaid orders, it is evident that in similar circumstances, this Court, even while exercise power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has set aside the order of cognizance. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, I am of the view that in the present case also, same order is required to be passed and, accordingly, order of cognizance dated 25.5.2004 passed in this case is set aside as well as all subsequent proceeding in respect of petitioners in Complaint Case No. 1182(C) of 2003 is set aside. 9. Accordingly, petition stands allowed.