Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18988 of 2018
Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Dubey
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the array of parties during the course of the day.
Short counter affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 28.11.2015, cognizance order dated 16.04.2016 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 6554 of 2016 (State Vs. Vijay Kumar), under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station- Sigra, District- Varanasi, pending in the court of C.J.M., Varanasi.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the dispute between the parties was purely civil and private in nature arising out of Rs. 17.25 lakhs obtained by the applicant from Indusind Bank of which, the opposite party no. 2 is the legal advisor.
It is then submitted that owing to certain financial constraints, the applicants could not repay the loan amount in time which resulted in the present FIR being lodged against the applicant since he had transferred the vehicle to a third party contrary to the terms of the loan agreement.
Further, it is submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings, the applicant has repaid to the Indusind Bank a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs, which has been accepted by the opposite party no. 2 as full and final settlement of its dues. The opposite party no. 2 has also expressed his desire not to press charges against the applicant.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 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. In fact the present short counter affidavit discloses that the compromise has been entered into between the parties. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
Paragraph nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the said short counter affidavit read as under:
"2. That the entire outstanding dues have been deposited by the applicant. Therefore, no further proceeding has been initiated against the applicant by the respondent Bank.
3. That a copy of the statement of account of the applicant is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. S.C.A.-1 to this short counter affidavit.
4. That in view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is expedient in the interest of justice that present short counter affidavit be taken on record and to be considered at the time of hearing of the present applicant, as otherwise, the respondent no. 2 will suffer irreparable loss and injury."
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and has submitted that the applicant and opposite party no.2 have settled through compromise their private and civil dispute 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 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 Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed, subject to payment of cost Rs. 2,000/- (1,000/- on each party) to be deposited before the Legal Services Committee, High Court Allahabad, within a period of three weeks from today.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018
A. Singh