Anil Saini vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—By way of this criminal application, prayer has been made to quash/set aside the proceedings of complaint case No. 823 of 2006 and complaint case No. 824 of 2006, both titled as Seema Singh v. Anil Saini as well as the order dated 16.5.2007, whereby the applicant-Anil Saini was forced to put his appearance in the court through non bailable warrants.

Having heard the learned Counsel of both the parties, it appears that some negotiable instruments act complaint case No. 1051 of 2004, titled as "Anil Saini v. Seema Singh" was pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, wherein the payment of Rs. 70,000/- was involved. That complaint case ended in compromise on dated 5.2.2007. The compromise was filed with the signatures of both the parties in the court and one of the terms of that compromise was that Seema Singh will withdraw her two complaint case Nos. 823/2006 and 824/2006 pending in the court of Magistrate against Anil Saini. In these complaint cases aforementioned, non-bailable warrants were issued as a measure of securing the attendance of the applicant.

Learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant drew attention of the Court regarding the litigation launched by Seema Singh against Anil Saini as back as in January 2006 which was in the form of filing the complaint case No. 86 of 2006 u/s 504/506 Indian Penal Code as well as complaint case No. 87/2006 u/s 323/504/506 Indian Penal Code. After passing the cognizance order u/s 204 of Code of Criminal Procedure, Seema Singh neither appeared before the court nor took steps, as required u/s 204 Code of Criminal Procedure for securing the attendance of Anil Saini in the court. With the result, the Magistrate discharged the applicant Anil Saini on dated 3.4.2006 exercising his powers u/s 245(2) Code of Criminal Procedure

Thereafter, the Respondent No. 2 filed other complaint cases No. 823/2006 and No. 824/2006, as afore-stated, on dated 15.4.2006.

It has been argued on behalf of the applicant Anil Saini that both these complaint cases, in sum and substance, are of the same incident of dated 4.7.2004, wherefore the earlier complaint case Nos. 86/2006 and 87/2006 were filed and in those complaint cases, the proceedings were dropped u/s 245(2) Code of Criminal Procedure

It has further been argued that for the same facts, No. further complaint case can be filed by Respondent No. 2 against the applicant. Besides, these complaint cases should be quashed on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties on dated 5.2.2007 in Negotiable Instrument Case No. 1051/2004, inasmuch as, it was one of the terms of the compromise that the Respondent No. 2 will withdraw both the complaint cases No. 823/2006 and 824/2006, but she has failed to honour the terms, as she had accepted by way of filing the compromise.

On a bare look of the facts of the complaint cases No. 86 of 2006 and 87 of 2006, this Court is of the view that facts stated therein are similar in sum and substance to that of the complaint case No. 823 of 2006 and 824 of 2006 and otherwise also, Seema Singh was bound to withdraw these complaint cases as per the terms of the compromise. So, on both the scores, the petition deserves to be allowed.

In view of what has been stated above, the C482 petition is allowed. Proceedings of the complaint case Nos. 823 of 2006 and 824 of 2006, nay the order dated 16.5.2007 issuing non-bailable warrant against the applicant, are hereby quashed.