ORDER By the Court.-These two petitions are being heard together and disposed of by the common order as both arise out of the same complaint. 2. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 of Cr. Misc. No. 31140 of 2012 are accused Nos. 1 and 2 of the Complaint Case No. 1512(C) of 2007 and petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 36230 of 20 12 is accused No. 3 of the said complaint. 3. These petitions are for quashing the order dated 28.7.2011 passed by Sri Ravi Ranjan, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna Sadar, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1512(C) of 2007, Trial No. 1922 of 2011 by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Section 420 as well as Sections 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The prosecution case as alleged in the complaint petition is that accused No. 1 is the present Secretary and accused No. 2 is the President and Ex-Secretary of the Alok Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti, Ltd., Patna Office (hereinafter referred to as the "Samiti"). It is alleged that one Baban Kumar the original member of the said Samiti bearing membership No. 447 was allotted a land by Samiti on payment of Rs. 55,000/- in installments. The said Baban Kumar transferred the land allotted to him to the complainant in the year 1992 and thereafter the complainant deposited Rs. 111/- on 4.3.1993 as member fee of the Samiti and Samiti recognized the transfer of plot to the complainant. It is further alleged that the said Samiti realized Rs. 9,000/- as excess amount in the name of the enhancement of the rate of plot against the allotted land measuring 1952 Sq. ft. The said enhanced money was deposited on 4.3.1994 in the Bank Account of the Samiti bearing Account No. 1410/08 U.CO. Bank Extension Counter, Tourist Bhavan, R. Block, Patna. It is further stated that in the general meeting held on 18.9.1995 the Samiti allotted a land measuring 1952 sq. ft. and the allotment letter issued to the complainant for allotment with respect to plot No. C/57 of the society but neither the actual delivery of possession was given nor the land was registered in her name. It is further alleged that the complainant deposited Rs. 8,000/- in the account of Samiti on 29.12.2006 and Rs. ft. and the allotment letter issued to the complainant for allotment with respect to plot No. C/57 of the society but neither the actual delivery of possession was given nor the land was registered in her name. It is further alleged that the complainant deposited Rs. 8,000/- in the account of Samiti on 29.12.2006 and Rs. 4,000/- on 2.3.2007 as development cost of the allotted plot in account No. 1410/8 of the Samiti on 29.12.2006 as asked by Samiti. It is further alleged that the complainant had filed representation to the President of the Samiti on 16.6.2006 and also gave a copy to the D.C.O. and the Secretary of the Society for redressal of grievances on 16.6.2006, thereafter complaint was made to the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna on 29.8.2006. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar also communicated and directed the Secretary of the Society for registration of the land in favour of the complainant but in vain. The complainant also made complaint to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on 3.10.2006. 5. On the complaint, the complainant and the witnesses were examined on oath by the Magistrate, who after considering the statement of the complainant and witnesses dismissed the complaint by order dated 19.7.2007 under Section 203 of the Cr PC on the ground that it is a civil litigation. The said order was challenged in the High Court in Criminal Revision bearing Cr. Revision No. 1211 of 2007. 6. In Revision the complainant asserted that after allotment of the plot a demand was made for payment of development cost of land in the year 2006 vide communication dated 15.9.2006 on assurance that the plot shall be allotted to her whereas the allotment of the land had been cancelled and allotted/registered to the accused No. 3 who is petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 36230 of 2012 in the year 2005 and hence it was argued that the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the ground that it is a civil dispute, but the assertion that the demand was made by the Samiti in 2006 even after cancellation of the plot in 2005 and allotment/registration of plot to Brijesh Pandey accused No. 3 of the complaint. So it was submitted that the demand made on the face of it appears to be deceitful representation on which the money demanded was deposited so the allegation makes out a criminal offence in addition to civil liability, hence, the complaint is not required to be dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr PC. It was further asserted that with regard to the allegation of similar nature cognizance has been taken in other case and hence, the Court is not denuded of taking cognizance. On the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 the complainant in criminal revision and in view of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioners did not appear in the criminal revision even after notice this Court in Cr. Revision No. 1211 of 2007 disposed of the case in following term, "In that view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that learned Court below should give a fresh look to the case. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 19.7.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1512(C) of 2007 is quashed and matter is remitted back to the Court below for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. The findings or observations made hereinabove are for the sake of disposal of the present application. All issues are left open to be considered by learned Court below in accordance with law". 7. On remand the trial Court without going for de novo enquiry under Sections 200 and 202, Cr PC considered the matter on the material already on record during the enquiry held earlier considered the fact that one Baban Kumar transferred his interest in the land in favour of the complainant which was approved by the Samiti vide letter No. 507 dated 27.12.1992 but the said land was not transferred by the Samiti in favour of the complainant despite repeated request. The complainant also deposited money as directed by Samiti and later the complainant came to know that said land was already transferred in favour of accused No. 3 Brijesh Pandey in the year 2005 and even then she was asked to pay money for the same land and the land has not been transferred in favour of the complainant despite the order of the Assistant Registrar and hence, the cognizance has been taken for offence under Section 420 and 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summon after taking cognizance. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have filed these petitions for quashing the order taking cognizance on the ground that the money said to have been demanded by the Samiti has been deposited in the account of Samiti and money has not been received by the petitioners and there is no allegation that the said money was fraudulently and dishonestly deceived or misappropriated or used by the petitioners in any manner. The cancellation of plot from the name of the complainant and allotment of the same in the name of accused No. 3 is no offence when the order of cancellation was passed after due notice and publication in newspaper 'Hindustan' dated 28.3.2001 for the members of Society to start construction of their house otherwise the allotment will be cancelled. The money has been deposited in the account of Samiti by the complainant. There is nothing to suggest that the petitioners defalcated even a single penny. The complainant has concealed the fact in the complaint petition that the said land C/57 was transferred in the name of Brijesh Pandey in the year 2005. The complainant has also concealed the fact that complainant was directed by the Samiti on 31.10.1996 to occupy her plot and demarcate by pillaring after depositing Rs. 3,000/- as development cost but she did not do so. Again the complainant was informed by the Society through letter dated 25.12.1996 that those members/allottees who were interested for registration of their sale-deed should furnish the affidavit about clearance of all dues of the Society but the complainant did not come forward for registration as she was a defaulter. Again the complainant was informed by Society vide letter No. AA/30/99-2000 for registration with the permission letter of the Collector, Patna but she did not take any step for registration of the sale-deed Annexure-4. Again the complainant was informed by Society vide letter No. AA/30/99-2000 for registration with the permission letter of the Collector, Patna but she did not take any step for registration of the sale-deed Annexure-4. Thereafter the Society published a notice in daily newspaper in 'Hindustan' on 28.3.2001 for the members to start construction of their house otherwise the allotment will be cancelled. On 22.9.2002 the Board of Directors decided and declared that the complainant was not inclined either to take possession of her land or for construction of her house and therefore the Society decided that the said plot No. C/57 should be allotted to Brijesh Pandey, a waiting member for land in the Society. On 27.2.2008 the Society informed the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies that plot No. 57/(C) was registered in favour of Brijesh Pandey as C/115. Thereafter the Society also replied to the legal notice sent by the complainant that it is ready to settle the matter if the complainant personally approaches the office but in vain and the complainant filed the present complaint petition. The complainant has been allotted revised plot No. 57/(C) but she has not accepted the same. The Society has also given legal notice to the complainant on 13.2.2008 that she should accept the revised plot C/57 and complete the formalities of registration by 31.3.2008. 9. A supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, Narendra Kumar Singh that the Society by general resolution changed the previous decision of the executive committee and in this way plot No. C/57 has been allotted to the complainant-opposite party No. 2 whereas plot No. C-115 has been allotted to Sri Brijesh Pandey. The possession letter of plot C/57 has been given to the complainant-opposite party No. 2. The Samiti has executed registered sale-deed of plot No. C/57 to the opposite party No. 2-complainant on 13.4.2013 and it has been asserted that the grievance of the complainant has been fulfilled in view of Annexures 12 and 13 to the effect that now there is no dispute between Brijesh Pandey, accused No. 3, who is petitioner and Rukmini Kumari, the complainant. 10. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the complainant that money was demanded for development of land allotted and for registration in 2006 whereas the same was allotted and registered to accused No. 3, who is petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 36230 of 2012 in the year 2005. 10. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the complainant that money was demanded for development of land allotted and for registration in 2006 whereas the same was allotted and registered to accused No. 3, who is petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 36230 of 2012 in the year 2005. The plot C/57 was allotted and registered in the name of accused No. 3 without cancelling it for personal gain without information to complainant when development charge for its registration was paid on 29.12.2006 & 2007 in A/C. No. 1410 of 2008 on demand by Samiti on 31.10.1996 and demand by Letter No. AA/30/99/200 was deposited. No information by letter dated 25.12.1996 was received and publication in 'Hindustan' newspaper was general and there is no decision of Board of Directors to cancel plot No. C/57 and there was manipulation and tampering with Society register recorded in the judgment in Court. The original allotted plot C/57 has been registered by the present Society in the name of opposite party No. 2 on 13.4.2013. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 31140 of 2012 submits that the allegation of cancellation of plot or settlement of plot and not executing a sale-deed or registering the land in favour of the complainant does not make out an offence, though there is allegation that the money was demanded after the allotment of land to accused No. 3 but the money was deposited in the account of the Samiti. There is no allegation that the money deposited by the complainant has ever been defalcated or used by the accused persons. It is further contended that the order impugned passed by the learned Magistrate after the order dismissing the complaint under Section 203, Cr PC having been challenged in revision before this Court and this Court after setting aside the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 203, Cr PC dismissing the complaint remanded the matter for further inquiry or for consideration afresh. It is further contended that the order passed by this Court in criminal revision for further investigation cannot be deemed to be a direction of this Court to the learned Magistrate to take cognizance and if the direction of this Court to pass an order in terms of direction to take cognizance amounts to influence the Magistrate to pass an order without application of mind is not sustainable and has relied upon a decision in the case of Sanjay Bansal and another v. Jawaharlal Vats and others, reported in (2007) 13 SCC 71 . It has further been contended that even if assuming that the order passed in revision to the effect of passing an order in revisional jurisdiction by this Court if found to be illegal the propriety of the order can be looked into by this Court in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr PC and has placed reliance upon a decision in the case of Lallan Choudhary & Ors. v. The State of Bihar, reported in 2003 (2) East Cr C 125 (Pat) : 2002 (4) PLJR 527 for the proposition that the inherent power of the High Court does not stand repelled when the revisional power under Section 397 overlaps. It has further been contended that the illegality and impropriety of the order passed in revisional jurisdiction can be rectified in review under Section 362 of the Indian Penal Code while exercising the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr PC and for this proposition has relied upon a decision in the case of Uma Shankar Jha v. State of Bihar, reported in 2001 (3) PLJR 728 . 12. 12. However, it is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that plot which was allotted to the complainant having been allotted and registered to the accused No. 3 Brijesh Pandey for which the complaint has been filed, has been registered in favour of the complainant and possession of the same having been given to the complainant after due execution of deed Annexure-13 in view of the petition filed by the complainant and accused No. 3 for correcting the mistake in the boundary of plot No. C/115 allotted to the accused No. 3 which caused confusion as per Annexure 12 of the supplementary affidavit and in that view there is averment in the deed duly signed by complainant, Rukmini Kumari, accused No. 3 Brijesh Pandey and Secretary of the Samiti, to the effect that victim-complainant has no dispute with accused No. 3 Brijesh Pandey and complainant accepted that she will co-operate to end the litigation against the Samiti and further in view of the fact that the money deposited by the complainant in the account in pursuance of the alleged demand has neither been misappropriated or defalcated by the Society or its office bearer and hence, in these facts and circumstances of the case allowing the complaint or the criminal prosecution to continue is an abuse of the process of the Court. 13. The learned counsel for Brijesh Pandey, accused No. 3, the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 36230 of 2012 submits that this petitioner is only the member of the Society and is not office-bearer of the Samiti. He has no concern with the demand of money by the Samiti from the complainant with regard to the demand for development cost of the plot C/57 and for registration of the same. It is further submitted that the dispute has been resolved by Annexures 12 and 13 of the supplementary affidavit filed by Narendra Kumar Singh. The case has been compromised with the complainant and the petitioner, Brijesh Pandey as averment made in Annexure 13 and moreover the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is compoundbale with permission of the Court. 14. Learned counsel for the complainant, however, contended that the allegations made in the complaint if taken on the face value. 14. Learned counsel for the complainant, however, contended that the allegations made in the complaint if taken on the face value. it is apparent that the money was taken on demand made even alter 2006 for allotment of plot when the plot has already been allotted and registered in 2005 to accused Brijesh Pandey and hence the demand for a plot which has been allotted to the complainant after the plot having been registered to accused No. 3 is, prima facie, a case of breach of trust and cheating indicating criminal liability for offence under Sections 406 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been contended that the compromise has been entered into between the complainant and Brijesh Pandey accused No. 3 only but not with the petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 31140 of 2012. 15. On respective submissions of the parties the question for consideration is whether the order taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate in pursuance of the order passed in revisional jurisdiction by this Court in Cr. Revision No. 1211 of 2007 for further enquiry requires re-consideration and whether the impugned order taking cognizance in pursuance of the order of this Court passed in Cr. Revision No. 1211 of 2007 dated 6.9.2010 can be revised or reviewed by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr PC and order passed in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court can be looked into or interfered with by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction of review under Section 362 of the Cr PC read with Section 482, Cr PC. The further question for consideration is whether allowing the prosecution to continue in view of subsequent development of the re-allotment of plot No. C/57 and the consequent registration of land and possession given to the complainant in view of Annexures 12 and 13 of the supplementary affidavit filed by Narendra Kumar Singh which corresponds to Annexure 6 of the supplementary affidavit filed by Brijesh Pandey is an abuse of the process of the Court and is required to be quashed in the interest of justice. 16. However, reverting back to the fact that a complaint was filed by the complainant-opposite party No. 2. 16. However, reverting back to the fact that a complaint was filed by the complainant-opposite party No. 2. On the complaint, the Magistrate proceeded for inquiry under Sections 200 and 202, Cr PC and thereafter the Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr PC holding that it is a case of civil dispute. However, the said order of the Magistrate dated 19.7.2007 was challenged in Cr. Revision No. 1211 of 2007. However, in Cr. Revision No. 1211 of 2007 by order dated 6.9.2010 the case was remitted back to consider afresh or to pass order afresh. Thereafter the impugned order has been passed, without going for further enquiry i.e. on material already on record in earlier enquiry, issuing process against the accused persons after taking cognizance for the offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that in 2006 money was demanded from the opposite party No. 2 even when the plot was allotted to accused No. 3 in 2005 and in pursuance of that demand the money deposited but the land was not registered. Hence, the order taking cognizance having been passed in pursuance of the order of this Court passed in Cr. Revision No. 1211 of 2007 and if an order has been passed in pursuance of the order passed in criminal revision setting aside the order of dismissal of the complaint under Section 203, Cr PC and then as per the decision in the case of Udit Narayan Patwari and others v. Emperor, reported in AIR 1938 Pat 369 the lower Court has no option but to issue notice after taking cognizance, the relevant portion whereof is quoted herein below for ready reference :- "The order by a superior Court to an inferior Court to hold further inquiry into a complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203, Cr PC has acquired what may be called a technical meaning. It simply means re-consideration. What step is to be taken thereafter will depend upon the circumstances of the case. Supposing a Magistrate dismisses a complaint immediately after the initial examination of the complainant and the superior Court orders further inquiry, the Magistrate may in that case, if he likes, before summoning the accused, hold an inquiry under Section 202, Cr PC. What step is to be taken thereafter will depend upon the circumstances of the case. Supposing a Magistrate dismisses a complaint immediately after the initial examination of the complainant and the superior Court orders further inquiry, the Magistrate may in that case, if he likes, before summoning the accused, hold an inquiry under Section 202, Cr PC. But in a case in which a complaint has been dismissed after a complete inquiry, it is obvious that the case is one in which the order of the superior Court for further inquiry can only be complied with by putting the accused upon their trial." 17. Further decision in the case of Hema Singh & another v. Emperor, reported in AIR 1929 Pat 644 in which the observation made is relevant to be quoted :- "In my opinion, if I may say so with respect, the order for a further inquiry did not make it obligatory for the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to proceed again under S 202, and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate not only had jurisdiction (even apart from the order for further inquiry) to proceed under Section 204, but was actually acting in compliance with the order when he summoned the petitioners." 18. Further the decision in the case of Shyamlal Ruia and another v. State and another, reported in AIR 1954 Patna 441 and it is relevant to quote paragraph 5 of the judgment :- "It is clear from what I have said above that a Magistrate, when directed to hold further inquiry under Section 436, Cr PC by a Superior Court, is not bound to hold further inquiry under Section 202. The matter comes back to him for reconsideration. He can, therefore, hold an inquiry or get an inquiry made under Section 202 or, if he considers it proper, he can issue process under Section 204 without any inquiry at all. As the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has, in this case, issued process against the petitioners without any inquiry after receiving the learned Additional Sessions Judge's order, I am unable to hold that he has acted illegally. There seems to be no reason, therefore, to set aside his order summoning the petitioners. The application is dismissed." 19. This view is also supported in the case of Abu Bakkar v. Belal Sheikh, reported in 1968 Cr LJ 1257. 20. There seems to be no reason, therefore, to set aside his order summoning the petitioners. The application is dismissed." 19. This view is also supported in the case of Abu Bakkar v. Belal Sheikh, reported in 1968 Cr LJ 1257. 20. Hence, from the above judicial pronouncement, it is apparent that in case a complaint having been dismissed under Section 203, Cr PC after enquiry under Sections 200 and 202, Cr PC and after revision by Superior Court the order under Section 203, Cr PC was set aside with direction to pass fresh order in accordance with law or further enquiry then the order is of technical meaning and the Magistrate may not require to go for a de novo enquiry and issue process under Section 204, Cr PC without any enquiry at all and it cannot be said that the Magistrate has acted illegally. 21. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court can review the order passed issuing process under the order of this Court in criminal revisional jurisdiction in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction and has placed reliance upon a decision in the case of Uma Shanker Jha (supra), however, it was a case in which the High Court dismissed a criminal revision in default for non-appearance with direction to dispose of the case expeditiously. A petition filed under Section 482, Cr PC for restoration before the same Bench of this Court and this Court recalled the order dismissing the criminal revision in default. However, the said principle cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the case is not of dismissal for default but an order passed in revision by this Court which has been complied by the lower Court and hence, the ratio decided is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as the order passed by the lower Court in pursuance of the direction given in revisional jurisdiction of this Court dated 6.9.2010 in Criminal Revision No. 1211 of 2007. 22. The further submission is that the order passed in revisional jurisdiction can be considered by exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr PC and has relied upon a decision in the case of Lallan Chaudhary (supra). 22. The further submission is that the order passed in revisional jurisdiction can be considered by exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr PC and has relied upon a decision in the case of Lallan Chaudhary (supra). However, in the said decision the order passed by the Sessions Judge in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction passed under Section 397 of the Cr PC was challenged before this Court in inherent jurisdiction and the High Court has repelled when revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr PC overlaps and order of the Sessions Judge was challenged before the High Court. However, the ratio decided in the case of Lallan Choudhary (supra) is not applied for proposition that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr PC can be applied to interfere with the order passed in pursuance of the revisional jurisdiction by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 23. The further submission is that this Court cannot give a direction to the sub-ordinate Court to pass a specific order devoid of application of mind by the sub-ordinate Court and placed reliance upon a decision in the case of Sanjay Bansal (supra). The fact of the case reported in Sanjay Bansal (supra) is that a petition was filed praying for a direction to proceed with the case and proper investigation. The High Court by impugned judgment directed the petitioners to lodge protest petition with further direction to the Magistrate to pass order taking into account of statement of injured and injury report with further direction that final report of police under Section 173(2), Cr PC is not to be accepted and if accepted be treated as rejected. Such direction was held to be unsustainable. However, the ratio decided in the case of Sanjay Bansal (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand as there is no such direction to pass order in specific term. The order passed at hand on the revisional jurisdiction is against the order passed by the Magistrate dismissing the complaint holding that the case is of civil dispute. The submission made before the revisional Court is that the order passed on fact that the money was demanded for development cost of the land whereas the land has been settled to accused No. 3, Brijesh Pandey. The submission made before the revisional Court is that the order passed on fact that the money was demanded for development cost of the land whereas the land has been settled to accused No. 3, Brijesh Pandey. In view of submission the order was passed setting aside the order and remitting the matter back for passing order afresh in accordance with law. It has been held by Division Bench of this Court as stated above that such order is only a technical order and order passed issuing process under Section 204, Cr PC in pursuance of an order of Superior Court to pass order afresh then order issuing process under Section 204, Cr PC is sustainable in law on well settled law laid down as stated above. Hence, the ratio decided in the case of Sanjay Bansal (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case in view of the decisions in the cases of Udit Narayan Patwari (supra). Hema Singh (supra) and Shyamlal Ruia (supra). In the case of Udit Narayan Patwari (supra) is direct decision on the point by Division Bench of this Court. 24. However, the next aspect of the matter that the complaint filed with grievance that the plot allotted to the complainant but the same was neither registered nor sale-deed executed nor possession given and demand made for development cost of the land in pretext for the allotment and registration of plot even when the plot was registered by sale-deed with accused Brijesh Pandey. The money demanded was deposited by the complainant in the account of Samiti. However, the plea is that the land allotted to Brijesh Pandey is after notice to complainant in newspaper and intimation to clear the demand which has been controverted by the complainant as not specific. The money demanded by Samiti was deposited in the account of Samiti by the complainant but there is no allegation that the money deposited by the complainant in the name of development cost in the account of Samiti was ever misappropriated or defalcated. The money demanded by Samiti was deposited in the account of Samiti by the complainant but there is no allegation that the money deposited by the complainant in the name of development cost in the account of Samiti was ever misappropriated or defalcated. However, during the pendency of this petition, a petition was filed by the complainant and Brijesh Pandey to correct the mistake regarding the allotment of plot to Brijesh Pandey as the boundary of plot C/115 has wrongly been mentioned as the boundary of plot C/57 so a petition filed before the Board of Directors of the committee which is Annexure 12 and in consequence the sale-deed Annexure 13 was executed by the Samiti with the signature of the complainant and Brijesh Pandey with averment that the complainant has no dispute with Brijesh Pandey and the complainant and further averment that the complainant accepted (Ekrar) that she will co-operate to end the litigation against the Samiti and going into question in this background whether allowing the prosecution to continue is an abuse of the process of the Court. 25. The submission of the learned counsel for the accused No. 3 Brijesh Pandey is that the complainant has compromised the case and the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code are compoundable with permission of the Court and averment in Annexure 13 is that complainant has no dispute with Brijesh Pandey and further averment is that complainant accepted that she will co-operate to end litigation against committee, When the case has been compromised with Brijesh Pandey and the complainant has no grievance against him and her grievance for the execution of sale-deed with regard to plot No. C/57 in her favour having been satisfied and mistake has been rectified then allowing the complaint to continue against Brijesh Pandey and others is an abuse of the process of the Court and further the fact that though the money demanded as development cost of the plot C/57 by Samiti for the sale-deed having been executed in favour of the complainant by the Samiti. There is no allegation at all that the money deposited by the complainant has been misappropriated or defalcated then it cannot be said that the money deposited by the complainant has been either misappropriated or obtained by deception dishonestly or fraudulently to attract Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and moreover the intention to cheat cannot be said from the outset from the time of allotment of the plot. However, the grievance of the complainant in the complaint is that the land allotted to her i.e. C/57 has not been given in possession nor sale-deed executed in her favour and the sale-deed registered in her name and she has been cheated as development cost for the land demanded even after allotment and registration of the land to accused Brijesh Pandey. However, the money deposited in the account of Samiti by the complainant remained as it is and there is no allegation or even material that the said amount was defalcated or even misappropriated and the petition of the complainant and the accused Brijesh Pandey Annexure-12 filed before Samiti and in consequence vide Annexure-13 a sale-deed executed in favour of the complainant in respect of plot C/57 and possession of same was given to the complainant and deed executed with the signature of the Secretary of the Samiti. The averment of the complainant is that she has now no grievance with Brijesh Pandey and further averment is that the complainant accepted that she will co-operate to end litigation against present Samiti. 26. Hence, in view of these subsequent development and facts and circumstances of the case, allowing the prosecution to continue is an abuse of the process of the Court and in the interest of justice entire criminal prosecution with regard to Complaint Case No. 1512(C) of 2007, Tr. No. 1922 of 2011 is hereby quashed and the petition is allowed. Petition allowed.