Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13806 of 2018 Applicant :- Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- A.K. Mishra,Sati Shanker Tripathi 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.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 06.10.2011 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 6198/IX of 2011 (State Vs. Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 306 of 2011, under Sections- 406, 420, 467, 468, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Govind Nagar, District- Mathura, pending in the court of C.J.M., Mathura.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the aforesaid prosecution has been lodged on the basis of a compromise deed executed between the parties where under certain property was agreed to be sold to the opposite party no. 2 for consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/-. Occasioned by the fact, the applicant could not execute the sale deed, the opposite party no. 2 had instituted the above proceedings. Then, the applicant approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17570 of 2011 which was disposed of by order dated 21.09.2011 with the following direction:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Admittedly, as per allegations of the First Information Report, the petitioners have taken Rs.1,20,000/- as advance for transferring the land to the complainant. The said land has not been transferred.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are prepared to pay the said amount although they claim that the said amount has already been paid.
The petitioners are directed to pay Rs.1,20,000/- to the respondent no.3 by bank draft within three weeks i.e. by 13.10.2011.
List this matter on 18.10.2011 before the appropriate Bench.
On that date, the petitioners will satisfy the Court that they have made the aforesaid payment to the respondent no.3.
It is made clear that the Court is not deciding final amount of the payment which is to be made to the respondent no.3.
Issue notice to the respondent no.3.
Respondent no.3 and learned A.G.A. may also file counter affidavit by the next date of listing.
Till the next date of listing, the arrest of the petitioners in Case Crime No.306 of 2011 under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Govind Nagar, District Mathura, shall remain stayed."
Upon receipt of the aforesaid amount, the opposite party no 2 then executed a fresh cancellation deed dated 01.02.2012 where under it was agreed in view of the Rs. 1,20,000/- having been paid by the applicant to the opposite party no. 2, the earlier compromise deed dated 01.12.2007 shall stand cancelled.
It is then stated that the aforesaid fact stands verified, by virtue of relevant recital of that fact made in the order dated 30.03.2018 passed by the Addl. Session Judge, Court No. 6, Mathura. A copy of the same is annexed with the affidavit in support of the present application.
Sri Devraj Singh, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. He 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.
It thus appears, on one hand, compromise deed which forms the foundation of the prosecution had thus been cancelled and it also appears that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature which has been settled upon payment of Rs.
1,20,000/- by the applicant to the opposite party no. 2. However, in the meantime, the charge sheet had been submitted on which cognizance has been taken against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgments 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 applicants and opposite party no.2 have compromised the dispute and as such opposite party no.2 does not want to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants 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 :- 24.4.2018 A. Singh