AMIT CHATURVEDI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS Amit Chaturvedi, Sanjay Chaturvedi, Sumit Chaturvedi and their father H.V.Chaturvedi pray to this Court that FIR No.702/2004 be quashed. They allege that they have compromised the matter with the persons who had deposited various amounts with companies floated by them and rely upon a Memorandum of Settlement. Justifying their plea that the complainants are only 30 in number, whom they have impleaded as R-2 to R-31 in the above captioned petition, they rely upon the list of witnesses filed along with the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

(2.) ORDER sheet of this Court in the instant petition would reveal that from time to time an attempt was made to verify from R-2 to R-31 whether they have compromised the matter and received the amounts invested by them with the companies floated by the petitioners and those of whom could be contacted, as recorded in the various orders passed, have affirmed that they have received the money which they had invested in the companies floated by the petitioners.

(3.) THERE is no law that merely because a complainant or a few out of many complainants compromise the matter with the accused pertaining to a non-compoundable cognizable offence, the FIR in question needs to be quashed on said sole ground. I remind myself that the process of criminal law in India treats cognizable non-compoundable offences as an offence against the State and the complainants have the status of a victim. The victim may settle, but the State may continue the prosecution and whether or not a decision of the State is justified would be gone into by a Court.