Court No. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46131 of 2019 Applicant :- Ankur Jain And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama along with a counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.
It has been stated by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 that the informant Rohit Gupta has executed a power of attorney in favour of one Pradeep Kumar Singhal on 10.10.2019 giving him the power to withdraw the case on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The said power of attorney is annexed along with counter affidavit filed today. It has further been stated that opposite party no.2 is not available in India and since he has executed power of attorney in favour of Pradeep Kumar Singhal, who is present in person before the Court, authorizing him to sign all the papers of compromise on his behalf.
Applicant no.1, namely, Ankur Jain on behalf of other applicants and Pradeep Kumar Singhal on behalf of opposite party no.2, duly identified by their counsel, are present in person. Their signatures have also been verified by their counsel.
Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the proceeding of Case No.33965 of 2019 (State Vs. Ankur Jain & others), arising out of Case Crime No.320 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 409 I.P.C., Police Station Babu Purwa, District Kanpur Nagar as well as charge sheet dated 07.07.2019 and its cognizance/summoning order dated 19.07.2019.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature, an FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no.2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of real incident. There was never any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. At present the parties to the dispute have resolved their differences and have made peace. In view of the settlement reached between the parties, the parties pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship. The continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship. In such changed circumstances, the opposite party no.2 does not wish to press charges against the applicants.
A counter affidavit has also been filed in this regard wherein the aforesaid facts stated by the applicants have been confirmed. The averments made in para nos. 3 to 5 of the affidavit are reproduced hereinunder :-
"3. That during the pendency of the impugned proceeding the parties have entered into compromise under the settlement without any complaint as such the compromise deed was prepared in the form of affidavit containing the detail terms and conditions of settlement.
4. That on the basis above said compromise deed prepared in the form of affidavit the complainant has no objection against at all.
5. That the matter relates to dispute regarding some business transaction as such subsequently both the parties have entered into the settlement."
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that opposite party no.2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case, are quashed. He does not dispute the correctness of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants on the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.
This Court is not unmindful of the following judgments of the Apex Court :-
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675.
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008) 9 SCC 677.
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1.
4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303.
5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.
In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Cort has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non-compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in the case of Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. & another; 2013 (83) ACC 278, in which the law expounded by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceeding of the above mentioned complaint case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No.33965 of 2019 (State Vs. Ankur Jain & others), arising out of Case Crime No.320 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 409 I.P.C., Police Station Babu Purwa, District Kanpur Nagar, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 Anand Sri./-