BRAJNANDAN SHARAN BANSAL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Brajnandan Sharan Bansal And Others
State of Uttarakhand and another
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) By way of present application / petition, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicants seek to quash and set aside the charge sheet, summoning order and entire proceedings of criminal case no. 3139 of 2007, State vs. Brajnandan Sharan Bansal and others, under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, registered in police station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.
(2.) An FIR was lodged by Saurav Mittal against Brajnandan Sharan Bansal, Amit Bansal and Smt. Ritu Bansal on 07.10.2006 in police station Roorkee, which was registered as case crime no. 299 of 2006 as regards offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 of IPC. The allegation against the accused persons in nutshell is that the accused persons took Rs. 5,00,000/- as earnest money from the informant but did not execute the sale deed. Criminal law was thus set into motion at the instance of Saurav Mittal against the accused persons. After the investigation, chargesheet against the accused persons was filed in respect of offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of IPC. Cognizance was taken by learned Magistrate on the basis of said chargesheet and the accused persons were summoned to face the trial in respect of said offences. Aggrieved against the said order, accused-applicants preferred this application / petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants drew attention of this Court towards the compromise deed filed on behalf of applicants on the one hand and respondent no. 2 on the other hand, which was annexed as Annexure-5 to the present petition. It was stated in the terms of settlement that there was a dispute between the parties regarding execution of sale deed in respect of land in question. The agreement to sale was executed on 10.05.2005, whereby it was agreed between the parties that the seller would execute the sale deed in favour of the purchaser on 22.09.2005. When the sale deed was not executed, respondent no. 2 Saurav Mittal filed an FIR on 07.10.2006 against the accused persons, which was registered as case crime no. 299 of 2006. It was also stated in the compromise deed that respondent no. 2 has received a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the applicants Brajnandan Sharan Bansal and others. Nothing was due against the first party i.e. applicants / accused persons. It was also stated that the second party is no more interested to prosecute the first party. The respondent no. 2 doesn't want to proceed against the applicants / accused persons.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.