HANSARAJSAXENA Vs. STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the petitions the petitioner is one and the same and the defacto complainants are shown as R2. Two cases are registered against the petitioner by the first respondent police, one in Crime No.833 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 385, 506(ii) IPC and another case in Crime No.849 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 147, 342, 323, 324, 385 and 506(ii) I.P.C. These Criminal Original Petitions are filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner, on the ground that matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. Affidavits are also filed by the defacto complainants to that effect.

(2.) Mr. V.Gopinath learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the compromise had been arrived by the parties and the matter was also amicably settled and the defacto complainants are not interested in pursuing the complaint and they also requested police to drop action in the complaint given by them against the accused. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the compliant indicates that the dispute between the defacto complainant and the accused arose out of a commercial transaction and they are the cases of civil in nature. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court:

(3.) The learned senior counsel Mr.Sriramulu appearing for defacto complainant in Crl.O.P.No.17635 of 2011 and Ms.R.J.Shyamala appearing for the defacto complainant in Crl.O.P.No.17636 of 2011 submit that defacto complainants are now present before the Court and also submitted that the matter has been settled and they have no objection for the proceedings to be quashed against the accused.