Order Heard counsel for the petitioners, counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners, in this instant application, have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding, including the order of cognizance dated 15.2.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh, in Complaint Case No. 78 of 2005 (T.R. No. 707 of 2006), whereby the petitioners have been directed to face trial for the offences under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. From the facts of the case, as explained by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it appears that the opposite party no. 2 had filed the complaint against the petitioners, who happen to be the Directors and office bearers of the finance company, namely, SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd., having its office at Kolkata, on the allegation that the complainant/opposite party no. 2, intending to purchase pay loaders, approached the petitioners' finance company through its Branch Manager, In-charge, namely, the present petitioner no. 3, for finance. In accordance with the terms and conditions, the complainant deposited margin money of Rs. 2,54,728/- by way of a cheque with the finance company and as against such deposit, the finance company was expected to delivery of the pay loaders to the complainant. The delivery of the pay loaders was not made within the period stipulated, on account of non-payment of the balance of the price of the pay loaders. The complainant had inferred that the finance company and its office bearers have cheated him and have criminally misappropriated his margin money of Rs. 2,54,728/-. On such allegations, the complainant had filed the complaint petition before the learned court below, citing, not only the aforementioned Branch Manager-Deepak Sinha, but also the Director and the Executive Director (petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 of the finance company), as accused. 4. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order of cognizance on the ground that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 ought not to have been made accused in this case and learned court below ought not to have proceeded against them after taking cognizance of the offences by issuing summons to them. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that in the entire complaint petition of the complainant, there is no averment whatsoever nor any such allegation to suggest the involvement of the petitioner Nos. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that in the entire complaint petition of the complainant, there is no averment whatsoever nor any such allegation to suggest the involvement of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in the entire transaction between the complainant and the petitioner no. 3. Learned counsel argues that the petitioners are merely the Directors of the finance company and posted at the company's headquarters at Kolkata. They cannot be saddled with any criminal liability for any of the offences for which cognizance has been taken against them. Learned counsel submits further that during the pendency of the present criminal miscellaneous application, the opposite party no. 2 has reconciled and has entered into a compromise by way of an out of Court settlement with the present petitioners and a compromise petition has also been filed under the joint signatures of the parties and the respective lawyers. Adverting to the compromise filed by way of an Interlocutory Application being I.A. (Cr.) No. 1630 of 2010, learned counsel submits that while confirming the fact of compromise having been effected between the parties, a prayer has been made for accepting the compromise and to permit the complainant to compound the case against the accused persons. Learned counsel adds that in view of the compromise, the entire criminal proceeding pending before the court below against the petitioners may be set aside on considering the fact that the complainant himself is no more desirous of prosecuting the case against the accused petitioners. Learned counsel adds further that under such circumstances, this Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, can grant relief to the disputing parties and save them from the rigors of a protracted trial. 5. The complainant/opposite party no. 2 has appeared through lawyer. Shri Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 affirms that the compromise has since been effected between the complainant and the accused petitioners and in view of the fact that the complainant has no further grievance against the petitioners, the complainant does not desire any more to pursue with the criminal proceeding against the petitioners for securing their conviction. 6. As it appears, the impugned order of cognizance has been challenged basically on the ground that the learned court below had failed to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case since the petitioner Nos. 6. As it appears, the impugned order of cognizance has been challenged basically on the ground that the learned court below had failed to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case since the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 being the Directors of the finance company and there being no specific allegation attributed to them, cognizance against them is bad in law. Learned counsel, however, does not insist upon pressing his ground in view of the fact that a compromise has been effected between the disputing parties. 7. It appears from the allegation that the dispute between the parties is purely personal 'in nature. The offences for which cognizance has been taken is compoundable. In view of the compromise effected between the parties, no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the proceedings since, the accused persons are not likely to be convicted. The continuation of the criminal prosecution against them under such circumstances, would not only be a futile exercise, but also amount to an abuse of the process of court. A similar issue came up for consideration by the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Chanana & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in 2008(3) JLJR 304 , in which the criminal proceeding was dropped on the ground that though the cognizance for the offences under Sections 419/420/465/468/469/471/472 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was taken but a compromise was subsequently effected between the disputing parties and the dispute between the parties was personal in nature, the Apex Court had observed that the continuation of the proceeding would, therefore, be a futile exercise. 8. In the light of the facts and circumstances and the discussions made above and relying upon the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Jagdish Chanana (supra), the entire criminal proceeding pending against the petitioners in the Court of Sri Daya Ram, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh or its successor, vide Complaint Case No. 78 of 2005 (T.R. No.707 of 2006) is hereby quashed.