Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18441 of 2018 Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Garg Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bidhan Chandra Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Sri Bidhan Chandra Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rakesh Kumar Garg, 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 09.10.2017, order dated 23.12.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 3603 of 2017 (State Vs. Virendra Kumar Garg), arising out of Case Crime No. 557 of 2017, under Sections- 420, 384, 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Firozabad (South), District- Firozabad, pending in the court of C.J.M., Firozabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the dispute between the parties was purely civil in nature arising out of a contract of sale of immovable property. Earlier, a civil suit had been instituted by the present applicant against the opposite party no. 2 claiming rights in the immovable property that had been originally agreed to be sold to the opposite party no. 2.
At some stage, an application was filed to transpose original plaintiff as defendant and original defendant as plaintiff. The said application came to be rejected. Perhaps this gave rise to certain misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties.
In this factual background, the opposite party no. 2 had instituted an FIR against the applicant alleging cheating on part of the applicant.
Also, the opposite party no. 2 instituted another suit being Original Suit No. 119 of 2017.
During the pendency of the second suit, parties have reached a settlement whereupon the Original Suit No. 119 of 2017 has been decreed in favour of the opposite party no. 2. Also, the original Suit No. 108 of 2007 filed by the applicant has been dismissed as not pressed. Thus, the dispute between the parties that was purely civil and private in nature not involving any criminal intent and not involving commission of any offence, stands resolved.
It is therefore prayed that the present application may be allowed and the criminal prosecution may be quashed.
Sri Rakesh Kumar Garg, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has also filed a detailed affidavit of the said opposite party no. 2. In that affidavit, it has been further disclosed that the compromise entered into between the parties was also confirmed in the proceedings of Original Suit No. 119 of 2017.
Paragraph nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the said affidavit read as under:
"7. That the partners of Bihariji Developers and Construction Company including complainant and Friend Glass Works Company Limited amicably settled the dispute with the applicant. The complainant, the director of Friends Glass Works Company Limited and the applicant filed affidavits in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Firozabad stating that the parties to the sit bearing O.S. No. 119 of 2017 have arrived at the compromise dated 05.04.2018 and has resolved the dispute.
8. That the compromise application dated 05.04.2018 was verified by the parties to the suit including the complainant by filing separate affidavits on 22.04.2018.
9. That the Civil Judge (S.D.), Firozabad vide order dated 22.04.2018 decided the suit in terms of compromise application dated 05.04.2018. The Civil Judge (S.D.), Firozabad prepared decree and compromise application dated 05.04.2018 became part of the decree.
10. That it is stated that the civil dispute as well as criminal proceedings arose from a transaction for the sale of land dated 07.04.2014. The parties to the civil suit have amicably settled the civil dispute. Other two suits instituted by the applicant stands dismissed and, therefore, dispute between the parties stood culminated in settlement which has been resulted in a decree. Thus, dispute between parties no longer exists. In the above premises, it is more than obvious that the Criminal Misc. Application be decided."
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, Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others reported in (2017) 5 SCC 350 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), Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others (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