RAMAPATI MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIJAY Kumar Verma, J. By means of these applications under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the 'cr. P. C. '), the applicants Rama pati Mishra and Deena Nath have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, praying for quashing of the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1422 of 2003 (Raj Ku mar v. Deena Nath and others), pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gyanpur (Bhadohi ).

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the applications under section 482 Cr. P. C. , in both these cases are that Raj Kumar Mishra (Opposite party No. 2 herein) had filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaypur (Bhadohi) on 7. 7. 2003, which was registered as complaint Case No. 1422 of 2003. The allegations made in the complaint, in brief, are that the accused Deena Nath in collusion with the accused Rama Pati Mishra playing fraud executed a sale deed of plot No. 149 in favour of the complainant after receiving Rs. 30, 000/-, whereas he was not the owner of this plot. After recording the statement of the com plainant under section 200 Cr. P. C. and taking evidence under section 202 Cr. P. C. , the accused Deena Nath and Ramapati were summoned to face the trial under sections 417, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 IPC vide order dated 16. 8. 2003. Against that summoning order, objections were filed by the applicants in the Court of Magistrate concerned, who declined to recall the summoning order. Thereafter criminal re vision was filed by the applicants challeng ing the summoning order, but the said revision was dismissed being not pressed vide order dated 27. 11. 2004. Now the ap plicants-accused have come to this Court for quashing the proceedings of complaint case mentioned herein-above.

(3.) THE complainant O. P. No. 2 Raj Kumar has filed counter affidavit in Cri. Misc. Application No. 59 of 2004. It is al leged in the said counter affidavit that the parties have entered into compromise and in pursuance of that compromise, the ac cused have made part payment to the de ponent and have given assurance to make remaining payment after withdrawal of the complaint by the deponent. It is prayed in para 6 of the counter affidavit that criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1422 of 2003 be quashed. In para 3 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the complain ant/deponent dose not want to prosecute the complaint in view of the compromise entered into between the parties. THEre is no reason to disbelieve the averments made in the counter affidavit and since the complainant himself does not want to prosecute his complaint and has made re quest to quash the proceedings of his complaint case, hence keeping in view the observations made in cases of B. S. Joshi v. State of Harvana and Ausaf Ahmad Abbasi v. State of U. P. (supra), proceedings of the complaint case referred to above may be quashed by this Court on its inherent ju risdiction. In the case of Ruchi Aganval v. Amit Kumar Agraival and others, 2005 (51) ACC 21 the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the proceedings of the criminal case due to the compromise en tered into between the parties. Following this case, this Court in the case of Shikha Singh and others v. State of U. P. and another, 2007 (59) ACC 123 quashed the proceedings of criminal case due to the compromise entered into between the parties. Similarly in the case of Dinesh Kumar fain and others v. State of U. P. and others 2007 (59) ACC 148 this Court has quashed the pro ceedings of the criminal case under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D. P. Act due to the compromise entered into be tween the parties in the proceedings under section 125 Cr. P. C. Reliance in this case has been placed on B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (supra ). In the case of Ganga Charan Rajpoot v. State of U. P. and others, 2007 (57) ACC 981 the proceedings of criminal case was quashed by the Court due to the compromise entered into be tween the parties outside the Court.