Akhilesh Chandra, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of order dated 01.04.2005 passed by Shri Satyendra Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 3029 (C)/2004 taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 403 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner is a non-banking finance company with whom complainant opposite party No. 2 got a sum of Rs. 15,000/- deposited in two separate deposits on 15.07.1997 but when the maturity amount of Rs. 30,000/- could not be paid on 15.04.2001, the instant case was filed wherein cognizance was taken.

4. It is admitted that petitioners company already paid the principal amount to opposite party No. 2 and also paid the amount for which the cheque was bounced. Only question of due interest till it is actual payment now remains in controversy.

5. During the course of argument, through different annexures, it is brought into notice that Bombay High Court is in control of the controversy relating to different finance company (non-banki