SATEESH CHANDER KUTHIALA Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through, the instant petition, the petitioner, seeks quashing of FIR bearing No. 167 of 2010, and, of, consequent therewith, case bearing No.89-2 of 2011, titled as State of H.P. vs. Sateesh Chander Kuthiala, carrying therein, offences constituted, under, Sections, 420, 467, 468 & 471, of, the IPC.

(2.) The offences constituted, in the afore FIR, are, appertaining, to, a property nomenclatured, as, Carling Ford, (i) and, embodies penally inculpable misdemeanors, comprised in forgery of apposite power, of, attorney, being hence made by the petitioner, (ii) and, the further therewith relinquishments, as, made by the petitioner, are, averred, to, be also legally flawed. The afore, became an acerbic contest inter se the petitioner, and, the informant, respondent No.2 herein, one Radha Krishan Kuthiala, in, Civil Suit No. 137 of 2010, and, therein, a, statement stood rendered, on oath by Nidhi Kuthiala, carrying echoings therein, qua hers handing over a sum of Rs.40 lakhs, as a measure towards full, and, final settlement, of, the dispute engaging them, in Civil Suit No.137of 2012, and, FIR No. 167 of 2010, (iii) and, the afore statement, was, visibly accepted, to be made in pursuance, to, a compromise, borne in Ex. C-1, rather also by the learned counsel representing respondent No.2 herein, arrayed, as, co-defendant No.1., in, the afore civil suit, under, his statement made without oath, in the afore civil suit, (iv) thereupon, the conjoint acceptance, by the learned counsel for defendant No.1, arrayed as corespondent No.2 herein, and, of co-defendant No.2, in civil suit No. 137 of 2012, of, compromise, borne in Ex. C-1, and, when in pursuance therewith, a compromise decree, of, dismissal of the civil suit, was, pronounced, on 24.10.2017, by this Court, (v) besides when, during, the pendency of the proceedings, arising, from the afore FIR, rather before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, the learned counsel, for, respondent No.2 herein/complainant, also made a submission therebefore, as, is evident, from, a perusal of the orders recorded, on 6.1.2018, by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, qua the dispute involved in FIR No.167/2010, of, 24.7.2010, and, in the civil suit being compromised, (vi) thereupon, all the imminent effects thereof are (vii) when in the afore civil suit also, the, property qua wherewith the plaintiff, and, defendant No.1/respondent No.2 herein, are hence, litigating, is, visibly similar to the property, embodied, in, FIR No.167 of 2010, (viii) and, when a sum of Rs.40 lakhs, is, testified to be accepted by the petitioner herein, from, one Nidhi Kuthiala, and, when the afore acceptance, as embodied, in Ex. C-1, as, appended with the verdict recorded, by this Court in Civil Suit No. 137 of 2012, stood also under a statement recorded, without oath by the counsel, for, respondent No.2 herein, and, arrayed as defendant No.1, in Civil Suit No. 137 of 2012, rather hence accepted, does beget, an, inevitable inference qua despite, the, civil dispute involved in the afore civil suit, being amicably settled, under, a verdict recorded, on 24.10.2017, by this Court, upon, Civil Suit No.137 of 2012. (vi) Necessarily also, with respondent No.2 herein, upon, his acquiescing, to, the making, of, Ex. C-1, thereupon, the, continuation, of the criminal proceedings being construable, to, be a tool, of, wreaking harassment, upon, the petitioner, and, besides, the complainant also, being estopped to make or cast any challenge, upon, the validities, of, power of attorney(ies), (vi) reiteratedly, his, rather accepting qua the power of attorney(ies), carrying an aura, of, authenticity, sparked by, his counsel, making a statement before this Court, in, Civil Suit No. 137 of 2012, whereunder, he accepted the terms and conditions, of, the compromise, borne, in, Ex.C1.

(3.) Be that as it may, with the Hon'ble Apex Court in a verdict pronounced, in a case titled, as The Commissioner of Police & Ors. vs. Devender Anand and Ors, Criminal Appeal No.834 of 2017, and, its therein making expostulation of law qua, vis-a-vis, a civil dispute, hence, criminal proceedings, being unamenable, to be drawn, against the accused concerned, (i) and, also its making further expostulation of law, qua, the drawing of criminal proceedings, upon, a settlement being arrived, at, in the civil suit, being an abuse of process of law, (ii) thereupon, the afore expostulation(s), of, law, are, with aplomb, vis-a-vis, the extantly prevailing factual scenario, hence, attracted thereon, (iii) as, given the requisite civil suit, for, the reasons aforestated, hence, involving property common, to, both civil suit No.137 of 2012, and, to FIR No. 167 of 2010, hence statements respectively recorded, by co-defendant No.2 one Nidhi Kuthiala, and, by the counsel representing, defendant No.1/respondent No.2 herein, rather being, permitted, to be withdrawn, by the plaintiff/petitioner herein, and, hence in the afore civil suit, and, in consonance therewith, this Court making a verdict, on 24.10.2017.