Heard Sri Virendra Bhatia, Senior Advocate for the petitioners, Sri Salil Kumar Srivastava, learned private counsel for the opposite party no. 3, learned A.G.A. Sri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties nos. 1 &2 and perused the material placed on record.
At the outset it may be mentioned that opposite party no. 3 filed a criminal complaint no. 39 of 2008, under Sections 11 of the U.P. Fire Protection and Fire Safety Act, 2005 read with Section 217, 218 & 120-B I.P.C. Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow on 25.01.2008. It is said that besides this complaint two other criminal and civil cases were filed by her against the petitioners and fortunately both the parties arrived at a compromise outside the Court on 22.02.2009. In this background, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was moved for quashing of the proceedings of criminal case under Crime No. 100 of 2006, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow and in the light of the law propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nikhim Merchant, reported in 2008 (9) SCC 677 and also taking a cue from the case of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, the proceedings were quashed by this Court's order dated 04.01.2010 mainly on the ground that it would be a futile exercise if the proceedings are continued before the court below.
The instant petition pertains to two criminal cases. One is the complaint case no. 39 of 2008 filed by Smt. Chandra Dixit, opposite party no. 3, as mentioned herein above and the other is another complaint case no. 1468 of 2008 (State Vs. Ajay Bahal) under Section 11 of the U.P. Fire Protection and Fire Safety Act, 2005.
Learned A.G.A. makes a preliminary objection that both these cases cannot be clubbed together in such a manner.
As far as the complaint case filed by opposite party no. 3 against the petitioners is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners does not want to press it at the moment. Opposite party no. 3 has filed a counter affidavit today in favour of the petitioners. His counsel also shows certifified copy of an application dated 13.12.2009 which he has moved for withdrawal of the complaint which is still pending for disposal before the court below. Therefore, on account of this reason also there is no necessity to club this complaint case in this petition. The opposite party no. 3, the complainant of that case may pursue with the aforesaid application seeking dismissal of the complaint and the learned Court below may pass appropriate orders expeditiously.
In respect of second complaint case no. 1468/2008 let this case be put up tomorrow to enable the learned counsel for the petitioners to file fresh affidavit in support of the petition in place of affidavit which has some defect as pointed out by learned A.G.A..
Order Date :- 6.1.2010 ML/-