MANOJ JAIN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the applicant, Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

(2.) THIS criminal misc. application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant against the summoning order dated 26.03.2010 and proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3149/2010 State v. Manoj Jain, under Section 420/406/504/506 IPC pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate - 1st, Dehradun.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant Ms. Prabha Naithani states that subsequent to filing of FIR a compromise has taken place between the parties and nothing further survives in the matter. Copy of compromise is available on record as Annexure No. 13 to the application. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has denied the fact of compromise and says that no compromise has taken place between the parties and the dispute between the parties still subsists. Moreover, whatever have been stated before this Court are a matter to be adjudicated only during trial. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also relied upon a decision of Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta v. Ashutosh Gupta reported in : (2010) 6 SCC 562 wherein on similar set of facts when an agreement of sale was executed between two parties on misrepresentation and fraud whether the fact that misrepresentation has been committed has been said to be only a matter to be adjudicated in a trial court and cannot be determined by the High Court in 482 proceedings.