Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19713 of 2018 Applicant :- Dinesh Chandra Katiyar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Bed Kant Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ashwani Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 9.6.2010 as well as entire proceeding in Case No. 13087 of 2010, arising out of Case Crime No. 406 of 2010, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant is submits that the present applicant is the managing director of M/s Bharat Oil and Gas Corporation Ltd. As to the FIR allegation, it is submitted that a wholly false and frivolous case has been lodged against the applicant alleging illegal retention of Rs. 5 lacs by the applicant against L.P.G. agency to be awarded to the opposite party no.2.
It is further stated that the aforesaid amount had been received by the Corporation by way of security. However, in view of the FIR being lodged and the charge sheet being submitted, the matter has been settled through a settlement reached between the parties wherein the Corporation has returned the money Rs. 5 lacs to opposite party no.2 to his full satisfaction. Consequently, the opposite party no.2 does not wish to press charges against the applicant.
Sri Ashwani Mishra has filed appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 and filed personal affidavit of the said opposite party no.2.
In this regard, a affidavit has been filed, wherein paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 reads as under:-
7. That during course of trial deponent recorded his statement and admitted that he received 5 lakh rupees by the applicant, applicant's company did not committed fraud with him, but deponent misguided/misunderstanding lodged the first information report against the present applicant, and present time deponent do not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal case which is pending against the present applicant before the learned court below.
8. That it is pertinent to mention here that deponent submitted an affidavit on dated 26.7.2010 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar, and stated that he will not pursue aforesaid case which is unnecessary pending against the present applicant, hence the proceeding of the above cases no. 13087 of 2010 (Arising out of Case Crime No. 406 of 2010) under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, may kindly be quashed.
9. That the matter has been amicably settled between the parties under the above terms and conditions. Hence the proceeding of the case may be quashed accordingly."
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and has submitted that the applicant and opposite party no.2 have settled through compromise their private and civil dispute and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicant. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicant and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.
From perusal of the record, it is apparent that parties have entered into compromise and have settled their civil and private disputes, amicably.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties regarding the compromise entered into between the parties. Taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, the compromise between parties be accepted and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed, subject to payment of cost Rs. 2,000/- (1,000 on each party) to be deposited before the Legal Services Committee, High Court Allahabad, within a period of three weeks from today.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 Mini