Court No. - 20 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 1936 of 2010 Petitioner :- Dr. A.K. Jain (Arun Kumar Jain)

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Petitioner Counsel :- Vivek Shrotria,Arunendra Mohan Shukla Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Raj Mani Chauhan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.N.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the documents available on record.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"It is expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the further proceedings and charge-sheet as well as order taking cognizance and summoning dated 26.11.2008 and 06.05.2009 passed by the C.J.M. Lucknow in Case No. 561/2008 under Sections 419/420/467/471 IPC, Police Station Naka, District Lucknow at present pending in the court of C.J.M. Lucknow.

The relevant facts giving rise to the present petition is that on the written report of the Ramesh Kumar Mishra, General Secretary, Indo American Friends Group 18 A, Jahingirabad, Hazratganj, Lucknow, the police of P.S. Naka, Lucknow registered a case against the petitioner at Crime No. 561/2008, under Sections 419/420/467/471 IPC. The Investigating Officer during the course of investigation did not find any evidence in support of commission of offences under Sections 419/420/467/471 IPC; rather he found evidence in support of offence under Section 500 IPC, consequently he submitted the impugned charge-sheet against the accused before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow which is Annexure 5 to the petition. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the basis of impugned charge-sheet has taken cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused vide order dated 26.11.2008.

Learned counsel for the petitioner and and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 (complainant) inform that the parties have settled their dispute out of the Court and the offence is compoundable. This fact has been admitted by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 in para 5 of the counter affidavit filed by him. Now the complainant does not want to prosecute the criminal case against the petitioner, therefore, the proceeding be quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in this case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizable of the offence under Section 500 IPC on the basis of charge-sheet which is barred under Section 199 of the Code, therefore, the cognizance itself is bad in the eyes of law which is liable to be quashed as well as the criminal proceeding of Case No. 561/2008 arising out of aforesaid charge-

sheet is also liable to be quashed.

Learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 although opposed the petition but fairly accepts that the cognizance for the offence under Section 500 IPC on the basis of charge-sheet is barred under Section 199 of the Code.

Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

In this case, the parties have settled their dispute out of the court and the complainant-opposite party no. 2 does not want to pursue the criminal case further.

In view of the provision under Section 199 of the Code, cognizance for the offence under Section 500 IPC can be taken only on the complaint filed by the aggrieved person. In this case the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet under Section 500 IPC which although can be treated as complaint but the Investigating Officer who will be treated as complainant cannot treated to be aggrieved person. At this stage, it will be desirable to mention the provision contained under Section 199 of the Code which provides the procedure for taking cognizance for defamation:

" 199. Prosec