Amit Kumar Gaur vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Vijay Lakshmi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 29.12.2005 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3354 of 2006, State Vs. Rajesh Pandit arising out of Case Crime No. 300 of 2005, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 IPC, Police Station-Sadar Bazar, District-Mathura pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mathura.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is shown only as a marginal witness in the disputed sale deed and he is not a beneficiary of the sale deed. Moreover, the first informant namely Leela Bihari Das (now deceased) had filed an affidavit before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in the same case crime number to the effect that being misguided by his neighbours, he had lodged the aforesaid F.I.R. The accused persons had never cheated him and had not committed any forgery. The parties have entered into a compromise and the informant does not want to proceed in the present criminal case any further.

On the aforesaid grounds learned counsel has made submission to quash the charge-sheet in the aforesaid case crime number.

Learned AGA has raised a preliminary objection that the charge-sheet was filed in the year 2005 on which the cognizance was taken in the year 2006. After expiry of such a long period the applicant has come before this Court for quashing of the charge-sheet that too on the basis of an affidavit of a person (first informant) who is dead and there is no one to inform the court about the actual position.

Learned A.G.A. has further contended that as all the offences in which the applicant is charge-sheeted are not compoundable so the charge-sheet cannot be quashed on the ground that the parties have settled their dispute in terms of the compromise. Moreover as the compromise (Annexure No. 6) has not been been duly proved by the parties in the court hence it is just like a waste paper and no reliance can be placed upon it.

Considering all the facts and circumstances, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 : (1960) CriLJ 1239 : (1960) 3 SCR 388 , State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992) CriLJ 527 : (1990) 4 JT 650 : (1990) 2 SCALE 1066 : (1992) 1 SCC 335 Supp : (1990) 3 SCR 259 Supp , State of Bihar and Another Vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Another, AIR 1991 SC 1260 : (1991) 2 CompLJ 197 : (1991) CriLJ 1438 : (1991) 2 Crimes 113 : (1991) 2 JT 147 : (1992) 1 SCC 222 Supp : (1991) 2 SCR 1 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Others Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Others, AIR 2005 SC 9 : (2005) CriLJ 92 : (2004) 9 SCALE 177 : (2005) 1 SCC 122 . Although criminal proceedings may be quashed under inherent jurisdiction if the parties have compromised even in the non-compoundable cases as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 9 JT 457 : (2012) 9 JT 426 : (2012) 9 SCALE 257 : (2012) 10 SCC 303 , and also in Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2014 decided on 27th March 2014, in which Hon''ble Supreme Court has quashed the criminal proceedings involving section 307 of IPC. However, in the present case, as the complainant has died and the compromise deed filed by the applicant as Annexure No. 6 does not reflect that it has ever been duly verified and accepted by the court concerned, no reliance can be placed on it for quashing of the charge-sheet.

Hence, the prayer for quashing the entire proceeding as well as charge sheet submitted in the aforesaid case is refused. However, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amarawati and Another (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P., (2005) 1 AWC 416 : (2005) CriLJ 755 : (2005) 1 UPLBEC 155 as well as judgment passed by Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2009) 7 JT 327 : (2009) 4 SCALE 77 : (2009) 4 SCC 437 : (2009) 4 SCR 1027 : (2009) 4 UJ 1588 .

It is made clear that the applicant will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the Court below as directed above.

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.