Anil Jain v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23967 of 2022 Applicant :- Anil Jain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sagar Vaish Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Prevendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Sagar Vaish, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

¶2The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 12.10.2010, cognizance order dated 23.11.2010 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 10457 of 2014(State Vs. Anil Jain), arising out of Case Crime No. 2008 of 2010, under Sections-419, 420, 467, 471, 406, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Indirapuram, District-Ghaziabad, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate(Senior Devision), 4th, Ghaziabad.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant and opposite party No. 2 have entered into compromise and out of the said compromise, applicant has come with a demand draft of Rs. 25 Lakhs, being D.D. No. 50067 dated 24.11.2023. He next submitted that in light of compromise entered between the parties, present criminal proceeding may be quashed.

¶4Today, Opposite Party No. 2-Jitendra Gupta is present before the Court, duly identified by Sri Praveen Kumar Pandey, Advocate. The aforesaid demand draft of Rs. 25 Lakhs is accepted by Opposite Party No. 2-Jitendra Gupta before this Court.

¶5Sri Prevendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Sagar Vaish, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has not objected the aforesaid facts and submitted that in case proceedings against the applicant is quashed, he would have no objection.

¶6In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant and opposite party no. 2 do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them. The matter has been mutually settled between the parties, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further.

¶7Thus in view of the well settled principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Krishnappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka; 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 529, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and another; 2017 9 SCC 641, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana; 2003(4) SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Burea of Investigation and another; (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 677, Gian Singh Vs. Stated of Punjab; (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and another; (2014) Supreme Today 642, the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

¶8The present application is, accordingly allowed.

¶9No order as to costs. Order Date :- 30.11.2023 ADY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad