Point of Law: While exercising power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party No.1 and Mr. Rajeev Chaddha, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the charge sheet No. 38 of 2012 dated 20.3.2012 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 335 of 2012 (State vs. Smt. Madhu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 97 of 2012, under Section 420 IPC, police station Simbhawali, district Panchsheel Nagar pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Garh Mukteshwar, district Panchsheel Nagar.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant No. 1 is the purchaser of land in dispute from one Madhu Sharma, who is daughter-in-law of opposite party No. 2 and applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are the witnesses of sale deed dated 12.12.2011. It is also submitted that as per prosecution case, opposite party No. 2 lodged first information report through an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 29.2.2012 making allegation inter alia that his daughter-in-law, Madhu Sharma has wrongly and illegally executed a sale deed of plot in question situated at village Goardhanpur, Ghaziabad (now district Hapur) dated 12.12.2011 in favour of applicant No. 1 after the death of his son, Pramod Kumar, in which the Investigating Officer has submitted impugned charge sheet dated 20.3.2012 under Section 420 IPC. The said charge sheet dated 20.3.2012 has been under challenge in the present application before this Court, in which vide order dated 28.8.2012, interim protection was granted to the applicants directing that until ordered otherwise, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that during the pendency of this application before this Court, parties concerned have entered into a compromise outside the Court, and thereafter, Civil Suit No. 62 of 2017 filed by grand-son of opposite party No. 2 for cancellation of sale deed dated 12.12.2011 has been decided in terms of compromise made between the parties concerned vide order dated 4.5.2017, which has been brought on record as annexure No. 2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 27.2.2018. It is also submitted that opposite party No. 2, Om Prakash has also moved an affidavit dated 16.10.2017 before the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Garhmukteshwar in Case No. 335 of 2012 (State vs. Smt. Gomti Devi and others) mentioning the factum of compromise made between the parties concerned praying therein to decide the case in terms of compromise, as he does not want to get the case proceeded further. On the said affidavit, order dated 11.1.2018 has been passed by the concerned court below accepting the said compromise affidavit on record. The said order dated 11.1.2018 has been brought on record as annexure No. 5 to the supplementary affidavit dated 27.2.2018.

4. It is also submitted that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end and on the aforesaid facts continuance of criminal proceedings pursuant to impugned charge-sheet against the applicants after compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise, therefore, same is liable to be quashed by this Court.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 do not dispute the aforesaid fact. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has also submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, opposite party No. 2 has no grievance and has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.

6. After having heard the argum