JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the entire proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 1097 (C) of 1999 including the order dated 21.8.1999 passed by Sri A.K. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 406, 420 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that Opp. Party No. 2 filed a complaint alleging therein that he had booked five-seater Maruti Van (Non-cat) on 3.6.1999. The petitioners were dealer of the Maruti Car. It was booked in the Show-Room of the office of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and petitioner No. 3 was the Regional Manager. After deposit of the cost of the vehicle, the vehicle was to be delivered. However, instead of delivery of five-seater Maruti Van (non-cat), petitioners without disclosing the fact offered the Maruti Van of cat category and due to this reason, the complainant felt that he was cheated and thereafter, he refused to take delivery and sent a legal notice to the petitioner for non-delivery of non-cat category vehicle. After filing of the complaint petition, the complainant was examined and in support of the complaint, one witness was examined as enquiry witness and thereafter by order dated 21.8.1999, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 406, 420 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Sri N.K. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while pressing the present petition, submits that immediately after noticing the defect, which was in respect of delivery of the vehicle, the petitioners took step for delivery of the vehicle, which was actually booked by the complainant. It was further submitted that so far the rate is concerned, there were no difference in between cat and non-cat category vehicle. However, after persuasion the complainant agreed to get the delivery of the vehicle as per the allotment order and the complainant was given a gift cheque of Rs. 5, 555/-. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed Annexure-1 to the present petition, which is a petition filed for compromise under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the offences, under which cognizance order was passed, were compoundable. 5, 555/-. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed Annexure-1 to the present petition, which is a petition filed for compromise under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the offences, under which cognizance order was passed, were compoundable. Even after filing of the compromise petition, no order could be passed by the concerned court. It was submitted that since the dispute has already been settled between the parties and the complainant has already delivered the vehicle, there is no purpose to allow the proceeding in Complaint Case No. 1097 (C) of 1999 to further proceed and accordingly, it has been prayed to quash the entire proceeding as well as order of cognizance dated 21.8.1999. 4. In this case, despite issuance of notice and its valid service, Opp. Party No. 2 has not preferred to appear before this Court. Accordingly, on 12.5.2010, while the case was taken up for hearing and compromise petition was pressed, it was observed by this Court that in absence of Opp. Party No. 2, it would be difficult to pass a positive order. Accordingly, learned Counsel for the petitioners sought time to persuade Opp. Party No. 2 to appear before the Court and accordingly the case was adjourned. Today, at the time of hearing, Sri N.K. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners informed the Court that despite his best efforts, he could not locate Opp. Party No. 2. 5. Accordingly, in absence of Opp. Party No. 2 I have perused the materials available on record. In view of the averments made in the petition that required vehicle was already delivered to the complainant, there is no purpose to proceed with the complaint case, which was mainly filed on an allegation that the required vehicle was not delivered to the complainant. In view of specific averments made in paragraph Nos. 18 and 19 of the petition as well as Annexure-1 to the petition, i.e. compromise petition, this Court feels that allowing the present proceeding to further proceed will amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, it is a fit case, in which inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised even at the initial stage. 6. Accordingly, it is a fit case, in which inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised even at the initial stage. 6. Accordingly, the order of cognizance as well as all subsequent proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1097 (C) of 1999 is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed.