RICHA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sections 482 read with 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the 'Code') has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the criminal proceedings instituted against them by the respondent No.2, Rajeev Jain vide Crime No.435/2010 under Sections 420, 467, 466, 471 and 120B of IPC registered at Police Station, Ashok Nagar, District Ashok Nagar and its consequent proceedings bearing Sessions Trial No.37/2013 pending before II Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar.

(2.) The quashment of the criminal proceedings has been prayed by the petitioners on the ground of compromise of the matter with the complainant being the respondent No.2.

(3.) Shri S.S.Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on account of the business rivalry with the petitioners, the respondent No.2 filed a false complaint against the petitioners and on the basis of it, the Police Station, Ashok Nagar registered FIR at Crime No.435/2010 under Sections 420, 467, 466, 471 and 120B of IPC . After completing the investigation, the police submitted a chargesheet before the competent Criminal Court. The petitioners submitted a petition under Section 482 of the Code being Mis. Cr. Case No.7766/2010 before this Court for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No.435/2010 . This Court vide order dated 14/02/2011, on the request of counsel for the petitioners dismissed the petition as not pressed with liberty to repeat it after framing of the charge, thereafter charge under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC has been framed against the petitioners on 30/04/2013 by the Court below. The complainant and the petitioners have filed applications under Sections 320(8) and 320(2) of the Code for compromise of the matter before the Court below and the applications are still pending before it. Since, the complainant/respondent No.2 settled the subjectmatter of the crime with the petitioners amicably, therefore, this petition is preferred by the petitioners for quashing the aforesaid criminal proceedings and the charge framed against them by the Court below. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited the following judgments in support of his contention: