High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 11 UK CK 0020

Ved Prakash Sharma and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Shri S.K. Dube Sachin Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 23 November 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prafulla C. Pant, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Application (C-482) No''s. 916 of 2007 and 304 of 2008

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 416 words

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—The Petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6275 of 2007, State v. Smt Meena and Ors. relating to offences punishable u/s 406, 420 and 307 I.P.C, Police Station Jwalapur, District Hardwar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar, by moving a petition u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C).

2.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent No. 2 S.K. Dube (complainant) lodged First Information Report registered as crime No. 409 of 2007, at police station Jwalapur against the Petitioners relating to offences punishable u/s 406, 420 and 307 I.P.C., alleging that the Petitioners have committed cheating with the Petitioners in respect of property regarding which the agreement date 14.06.2006, was entered between the parties, and the property was not transferred even after receiving the amount of consideration. It is also alleged that two boys came with country made pistol and fired at the complainant who admittedly suffered no injury.

4.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the dispute between parties is purely a civil dispute relating to property and the complainant has already entered into compromise with the Petitioners. In this connection an application No 1119 of 2008 has been moved along with affidavit that the parties to be litigation have already entered into compromise and proceedings be quashed.

5.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 (complainant) admits that compromise has already been entered with the Petitioners, and he does not want to prosecute them. In view of the Principle of law laid down in Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, where offence alleged is not compoundable but it is basically a civil dispute of property, and parties have entered into compromise, the proceedings can be quashed.

6.

In the above circumstances, having heard learned Counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. Proceedings of criminal case no 6275 of 2007 State v. Smt Meena and Ors. pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar, are hereby quashed. As to the release of the property the Petitioner Sachin Sharma may move an application before the court concerned. The petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C No. 304 of 2008, also stands disposed of. (Application No. 1119 of 2008 also stands disposed of).