Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14830 of 2018
Applicant :- Faem Ahmad Ansari And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ganesh Shankar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Sri Sanjay Kumar Shukla, Advocate has filed a short counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 22.10.2017 and the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 2444 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 653 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., Police Station- Najibabad, District- Bijnor, pending before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Najibabad, Bijnor.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though the applicants had got the sale deed executed from the father of the opposite party no.2, occasioned by certain misunderstandings and differences, the said opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR alleging that the applicants had got the sale deed executed fraudulently.
With the passage of time the parties have been able to resolve their misunderstandings and differences and at present the opposite party no.2 does not wish to press charges against the applicants.
Sri Sanjay Kumar Shukla, Advocate has filed a short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2. A copy of the compromise claims to have entered into between the parties, has also been annexed with the said affidavit. In paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said counter affidavit reads as under:
6. That notary affidavit has also been filed by the mother of the answering respondent before the mediation and conciliation centre, Bijnor, in which clearly stated that the matter has been compromised between the parties therefore, there is no any quarrel remain. Copy of the notary affidavit filed by the mother of the deponent before the mediation and conciliation centre, Bijnor is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.1 to this affidavit.
7. That in view of the compromise entered between the deponent and applicants, deponent does not want to proceed against the applicants and he has no objection to quashed the entire criminal proceedings arises out of charge sheet dated 22.10.2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 653 of 2017 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police Station Najibabad, District Bijnor and also quash the proceedings of the Case No. 2444 of 2017 (State Vs. Naem Ahmad) pending before the Judicial magistrate-I, Najibabad, Bijnor."
It is further stated that the sale deed that had been claimed (by the applicants) to have been executed by the father of the opposite party no.2, has been cancelled and certain money has been paid by the applicants in lieu thereof. He does not dispute the correctness of the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. He further submits that the opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings of the aforesaid case are quashed.
It thus appears that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and the same has been resolved outside court.
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and has submitted that the applicant and opposite party no.2 have settled the dispute through a compromise 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 from 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 dispute 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 Narindra Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra) and Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed. Order Date :- 30.4.2018 Lbm/-