JUDGEMENT Akhilesh Chandra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. During course of argument, it is submitted that Bakshi Rasik Bihari Sinha @ Bhaskar Rasik Bihari Sinha is now no more, who was earlier representing petitioner No. 1, M/S Essar Bihar Finance and Savings Private Limited, which now being represented by his wife, petitioner No. 2 being solitary surviving partner. 2. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 21.12.2004 passed in Criminal Revision No. 246 of 2004 by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, preferred against order dated 25.03.2004 passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 347(C)/1999 to 356(C)/99, refusing to recall process issued under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. 3. In short, the undisputed fact is that opposite party No. 2 had lodged all the ten complaint cases against the petitioners for non-filing of the returns in the prescribed form as per the provisions under Section 5 of the Companies Act, where in the petitioners appeared and were enlarged on bail. Subsequently, in response of Fast Track Scheme, the petitioners appeared before complainant and accordingly a sum of Rs. 2,860/- (Two thousand eight hundred sixty) in each cases as fine was imposed and immediately the amount totaling to 28,600/- (Twenty eight thousand six hundred) was deposited by the petitioner on 31.01.2001 on the receipt issued. 4. As submitted, the certificate of immunity by the designated authority was to be issued after receipt of the penalty so imposed and accordingly the cases were to be withdrawn from the Special Courts. 5. The petitioners were under wrong impression that now they are to do nothing hence left attending court from where they were enlarged on bail, giving rise to cancellation of their bail-bonds followed by issuance of other processes under law to secure their attendance. 6. On getting information about the steps taken by the court by filing petition, prayer was made on their behalf stating all facts to recall the processes issued, which was refused by the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court, both giving rise to instant application. 7. 6. On getting information about the steps taken by the court by filing petition, prayer was made on their behalf stating all facts to recall the processes issued, which was refused by the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court, both giving rise to instant application. 7. No doubt, the petitioners were not to leave attending Court, unless and until on receipt of immunity certificate coupled with prayer of withdrawal of the case was submitted by the Registrar of the companies i.e. the complainant and appropriate order is passed by the court, where the cases were pending, but at the same time since they have submitted the basis of their committing such wrong i.e. nothing, but the wrong impression that now after payment of the penalty imposed, the designated authority shall discharge their part of liability and treated the cases withdrawn. And no purpose is going to be served, if in spite of making payment of penalty imposed for the alleged wrongs committed to the complainant, the petitioners be subjected to rigor of the law by getting execution of processes of attachment or keeping them in custody for the unintentional wrong done, they have already suffered lot. 8. Under such circumstances both the orders under challenged are set-aside, petition stands allowed. Petitioners are directed to appear before the court below where the appearance shall be considered as appearance \ immediately after cancellation of their bail bonds and shall be released on the conditions imposed by the court below as regard to bail or their presence of the dates fixed in the case till the designated authority discharge their responsibility and prayed for withdrawal of the cases. Application stands disposed of.