Court No. - 40
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43177 of 2018 Applicant :- Sandeep Dixit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Ms. Vatsala Upadhyay, Advocate has filed her power on behalf of the opposite party no.2 is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and Ms. Vatsala Upadhyay, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 1258 of 2017 (State Vs. Sandeep Dixit) arising out of case crime no. 65 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur which is pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Saharanpur on the basis of compromise dated 12.10.2018.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR was lodged on 9.2.2016 by opposite party no. 2 against the applicant through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that the applicant is partner of opposite party no.2 and he sold the property to some other person without his permission and did not pay the amount to the opposite party no.2 of his share. The Investigating Officer after investigation submitted the charge-sheet dated 23.2.2017 against the applicant and learned Magistrate took cognizance on 12.6.2017.
It is next contended that after taking cognizance, the matter was settled between the applicant and opposite party no.2 and they submitted applications for settled their matter before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- Ist, Saharanpur on 12.10.2018 with compromise dated 12.10.2018 filed as Annexure no.4 to this application.
It is next contended that the matter is purely civil in nature and both the parties have settled their dispute out of court and submitted compromise application before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist, Saharanpur but court below did not pass any order on the compromise application till today.
On the other hand, Ms. Vatsala Upadhyay, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 did not dispute the aforesaid facts and submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, both have placed the reliance on the following judgments:-
1. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2008 LawSuit (SC) 1292
2. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another 2012 LawSuit (SC) 623
3. Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another 2013 LawSuit (All) 1818
4. Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2014 LawSuit (SC) 202
5. Anita Maria Dias and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2018 LawSuit (SC) 76 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as noted herein above and also the submission made by the counsel for the parties, the Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case.
In view of above, this application is disposed of with a direction to the ACJM-Ist, Saharanpur to consider and decide the joint compromise applications of the applicant and opposite party no.2 within 30 days after getting the genuineness of the compromise application verified from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018 AK Pandey/Abhishek