Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal, J The petitioner through the present writ petition has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 7.5.2008 relating to case crime 158 of 2008 under Section 406, 407, 409, 419, 420, 504 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District-Allahabad.
Heard Sri Sushil Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 - the complainant.
As per the FIR (Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition), Ajeya Singh, respondent no. 3 is the Director of Atlantis Multiplex, Allahabad. Accused called her to Florida, USA in November, 2005 and entered into a compromise to give 50 % shares in her property 'Days Inn' but shares were not sent. In the E-mail dated 21.9.2006, Nishi Mallick admitted Ajeya Singh to be a 50 % partner in the aforesaid property and promised that she would sell her share of the property by taking a loan, would invest the money in Atlantis Multiplex. Nishi Mallick neither handed over any share in the property situated at the Florida nor paid the money and started demanding share in the Atlantis Multiplex.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of the alleged FIR, no cognizable offence is made out and lodging of the FIR was mis-used of due process of law. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise deed dated 173.2009 with no grievance against each other. The copy of the compromise deed has been filed as Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition. Respondent no. 3 Ajeya Singh has filed his own affidavit on 10.8.2009 wherein it has been stated that the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 have entered into 2 compromise on 17.3.2009 and have decided to withdraw or not pursue their respective criminal cases pending between them and he no longer wants the petitioner to be subjected to either investigation of the impugned FIR or any prosecution thereunder.
Apex Court in case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 464 observed as under :-
"We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a pure personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.
Considering the facts that the subject matter of this FIR, which is a commercial dispute and is now stands voluntary, mutually and amicably settled between the parties vide compromise deed (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition), we see no purpose in continuing the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR in question. More over it is no where alleged in the FIR that any money or property was handed over by the respondent no. 3 to the petitioner on the persuasion of the petitioner. The dispute between the parties is of a purely personal nature. After compromise between the parties, keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury for the courts.
We accordingly allow the writ petition and the FIR dated 7.5.2008 relating to case crime no. 158 of 2008 under Section 406, 407, 409, 419, 420, 504 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District-Allahabad and all proceedings connected therewith are quashed.
18.1. 2010 KU/-