VINOD PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE applicant Harmendra Singh,through the present Application has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this, U/S 482 of the Code, with the prayers that proceedings of Complaint Case No.130 of 1991, Smt. Jamuna Devi Vs. Jagdish Singh @ Jagjeet Singh, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi for offences under Sections 420, 467, 120B, 406 IPC, P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi against him be quashed. Subsequent payer is for stay of further proceedings of trial court pending disposal of this 482 Application.
(2.) IN nutshell background facts are that one Jamuna Devi widow of Bansi Lal Sahu lodged a complaint (Annexure No.1) against applicant Harmendra Singh, his father Jagdish Singh @ Jagjeet Singh, Uma Shankar and Preetam Singh son of Hari Singh for committing offences U/Ss 420, 406, 120-B, 467 IPC, which was registered as Complaint Case No.2053 of 1982 in the court of C.J.M., Jhansi. Following procedure of complaint case statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. (Annexure No.2) and that of her witness Ayodhya Prasad under section 202 of the Code (Annexure No.3) were recorded on 30.1.1982 and 11.2.1982 respectively. Finding prima facie offences being disclosed,accused persons were summoned under Sections 420, 406, 120B, 467 IPC by the trial Magistrate on 11.2.1982 . Against summoning order, accused Jagdish Singh @ Jagjeet Singh and others approached this Court in 482 Cr.P.C. Application Number 1583 of 1982 (Jagjeet Singh and others Vs. Smt. Jamuna Devi) in which this Court on 17.3.1982 had granted a stay order, staying further proceedings of the trial court. Meanwhile, a compromise was accorded between complainant and accused persons and the same was filed before C.J.M., Jhansi on 20.4.1990 Vide Annexure No.5. The said compromise was signed by complainant Jamuna Devi and accused Jagdish Singh @ Jagjeet Singh, Preetam Singh and applicant Harmendra Singh. Along with the compromise an affidavit of complainant Jamuna Devi was also annexed, which was sweared on 19.4.1990. Since accord was reached between the contesting sides, accused applicant in this Court prayed that their 482 Cr.P.C. application 1583 of 1982 be dismissed as become infructous. In view of aforesaid statement, vide Annexure No.6, the aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous Application was dismissed and interim order dated 17.3.1982 was vacated on 4.12.1990. Meanwhile, the trial vacillated from one Court to another Court without above compromise application filed by the complainant and the accused be decided. Pendente lite trial sole witness of complainant Ayodhya Prasad expired in the year 1994 and complainant Jamuna Devi also expired on 2.5.2002. In respect of demise of complainant, a police report was submitted by police station Sipri Bazar, vide Annexure No.7. Another interesting feature of the case occurred meanwhile was that out of five accused but for applicant, all other four accused Jagjeet Singh, Preetam Singh son of Kishan Singh, Uma Shanker and Preetam Singh son of Hari Singh also expired in between the years 1992 to 2000. The present applicant, therefore, was left all alone to contest the case from both the sides. Since stay oder was vacated by this Hon'ble Court in 482 Cr.P.C. application filed by the applicant, therefore, non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant, which is clear from copy of the order-sheet of the trial court Annexure No.8 to this Application. Hence, present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer that aforesaid prosecution of the applicant be quashed. I have heard Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA in opposition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that the dispute between the complainant and the accused persons was in the nature of a civil dispute regarding sale of immovable property of House No.204 with out any criminal contents and hence prosecution of the applicant is illegal. It was further submitted that complaint was lodged after an inordinate delay of fourteen years in the year 1982 whereas incident was alleged to have occurred on 27.1.1968 and because of such delay trial of the applicant deserves to be quashed. It was further submitted that since complainant Jamuna Devi and her sole witness Ayodhya Prasad both had expired and since heirs of complainant Jamuna Devi, namely, Ram Swaroop and Shyam Swaroop did not got their names impleaded and got them transposed as complainant under Section 302 of the Code, prosecution of complaint case cannot proceed further as there shall be nobody to prosecute the sole accused applicant. It was next submitted that in view of Section 249 of the code, accused persons should have been discharged, which has not been done therefore, prosecution of applicant is nothing but a fruitless exercise with result known and predetermined and therefore deserves to be quashed. It was additionally submitted that applicant had preferred a second 482 Cr.P.C. Application in this Court, in which this Court had directed compromise (Annexure No.9) to be considered in accordance with law vide its order dated 7.5.2010 passed in aforesaid 2nd Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.15898 of 2010, vide Annexure No.10, to the instant Application but the same has not been considered as yet and trial court is impressing upon presence of the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order dated 18.6.2010 issuing non-bailable warrant and proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. by C.J.M. Jhansi, on the peculiar facts of the case is wholly illegal, as securing presence of the applicant in the trial will not serve any purpose at all. It was submitted that neither complainant nor her witness are alive and therefore, there is nobody to prosecute the complainant and consequently there was no necessity for C.J.M., Jhansi to ensure presence of the applicant, who is the sole surviving party in the trial. It was, therefore, submitted that the prosecution of the applicant be quashed. Learned AGA also could not support the reasons why C.J.M, Jhansi wants to impress upon presence of the applicant when infact the fate of the case was pre-determined.;