Court No. - 42

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16280 of 2009

Applicant :- Jawahar Mishra And Others

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Kr. Gupta

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Brahmanand

Tripathi

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Kundan Mishra learned Advocate holding brief of

Sri Satendra Kumar Gupta learned counsel for the applicants

and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. None has appeared for the complainant.

4. Present application has been filed to quash the order dated

29.4.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 21

Deoria in Complaint Case No. 509 of 2007 (Santosh v. Tara

Shankar and Others) under Sections 147, 148, 323, 336, 504,

506 IPC, Police Station Khukhundu, District Deoria.

5. By the impugned order dated 29.4.2009 the learned court

below has issued process to the applicants to appear on the date

fixed.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the case has a

chequered history. Earlier, upon complaint being filed by the

opposite party No.2, the applicants and six other persons were

summoned by order dated 17.9.1998. Upon objection raised by

the applicants, that order was recalled on 12.2.1999. Thereafter

the opposite party No. 2 first claimed execution of a

compromise between the parties. That application was filed on

25.9.2001. On the other hand, the witnesses examined under

Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. disputed their statements. The

applicants instituted Misc. Case No. 114 of 2008 against the

complainant under Section 340 Cr.P.C..

7. While the aforesaid proceedings were pending, impugned

order dated 29.4.2009 came to be passed which has been

challenged in the present application.

8. Today, learned counsel for the applicants states that the

proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. have remained pending

while the complainant has died.

9. Though the death of the complainant could not be confirmed

at this stage, however no useful purpose may be served in

keeping the petition pending any further.

10. Unless the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C are

dropped, it is difficult to imagine how the applicants may be

proceeded.

11. Also in the event of the death of the complainant, the

complaint may not be carried any further as it will remain a

disputed fact whether the statements recorded earlier were true

or had been manufactured.

12. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 29.4.2009 is

set aside. This application is disposed of with the following

observations.

(i) Upon a copy of this order being produced before the learned

court below, it may first be ascertained whether the complainant

is alive.

(ii). In case the complainant is available, proceedings under

Section 340 Cr.P.C. would have to be first examined and taken

to their logical end before proceeding against the applicants.

Order Date :- 24.11.2021/Faraz