Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14066 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt. Reeta Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Indra Kumar Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Sri Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pradeep Singh Sengar, 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 27.02.2018 and the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 825 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 391 of 2015, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Jhunsi, District- Allahabad pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Allahabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant states that the aforesaid prosecution had been lodged against the applicant arising from the registered sale deed dated 19.07.2013 executed in favour of the applicant by an imposter. Though, the applicant was a bonafide purchaser, yet, the opposite party no.2, who is the recorded owner of the land had both instituted suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 19.07.2013 as also lodged an FIR giving rise to the present prosecution.
During the pendency of the civil suit, the parties entered into a compromise, whereby the present applicant conceded to the fact that the sale deed executed in her favour may be cancelled. On such concession, a civil suit filed by the opposite party no.2 for cancellation of the sale deed dated 19.07.2013 being Original Suit No. 1082 of 2015 has been decreed by the judgement dated 17.12.2016 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate/Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Court No.3, Allahabad.
In addition, learned counsel for the applicant further states that the opposite party no.2 had filed her personal affidavit before the Investigating Officer stating that she did not wish to press charges against the present applicant (only).
It is also not disputed that the present applicant was a bonafide purchaser.
Sri Pradeep Singh Sengar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the contentions raised or the documents that have been relied on the present application by learned counsel for the applicant.
He further submits that while the opposite party no.2 is not pressing the charges against the present applicant, the charge sheet has to be taken to its logical end so far as the co-accused Samar Nath Gupta and Savitri Devi are concerned. The said opposite party no.2 shall thus continue to press charges against them.
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.
Leaving it open to the opposite party no.2 to file recall application, if need arises. At present it does appear that the opposite party no.2 does not intend or wish to press charges against the applicant in view of the recital made in the judgement and order of the civil court dated 17.12.2016 and her affidavit filed before the Investigating Officer.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Lbm/-