Vinod Prasad, J. - (1.) KALIM Ahmad @ Anwar Miyan, Shahid Ahmad @ Shahid Miyan, Zaheer Ahmad @ Jaheer Miyan and Sajid Ahmad @ Guddu, four sibling broth ers all sons of Late Nawab Ali, resident of 153, Shahbad, P.S. Prem Nagar, District Bareilly have invoked the inherent juris diction of this Court by filing of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application with the prayer to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2257 of 2004 for of fences under sections 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of Ld. JM 1st, Bareilly.
(2.) I have heard Sri Sushil Shukla, learned Counsel for the applicants in sup port of this application as well as Sri Azhar Hussain, learned Counsel for the respon dent and learned AGA in opposition and perused the record of this application. In a bird eye view, the allegations against the applicants, as is contained in Annexure No.1 are that Sri Kishan lal Suri son of Sri Bhagwan Das Suri, resident of 23-A Model Town, P.S. Baradari, district Bareilly had purchased a house from Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Kunj lal, who was holding power of attorney of his wife namely Smt. Shanti Devi, which house was alloted a new Municipal Number being House No. 218/154. The said house was given under the tenancy of Nawab Ali, fa ther of the applicants. After the demise of Nawab Ali, the four applicants, as heirs of the deceased came in possession over the said house, as tenants. Further allegations are that the aforesaid, applicants by imper sonating Smt. Shanti Devi through an imposter lady got executed a fictitious sale deed through a sham transaction in their favour and got it registered in the office of Deputy Registrar Registration and started claiming the ownership of the aforesaid house. Since the property was purchased through a sham transaction, FIR Annexure No. 1 was got lodged by Kishan lal Suri on 29.5.1999 at 5.00 p.m. at P.S. Kotwali, dis trict Bareilly showing the date of the inci dent as 29.5.1992, which FIR was registered as Crime No. 2350 of 1999 for offences un der sections 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC. The police of police station Kotwali, district Bareilly engineered the inves tigation and after concluding the same submitted a final report on 9.2.2000 (Annexure No. 2). Thereafter, what tran spires is that a protest petition was filed by the informant, which was treated to be a complaint by the concerned Magistrate who recorded the statement of the infor mant under section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of his witnesses P.W.I Manohar lal and P.W.2 Om Prakash Goyel under section 202 Cr.P.C. Basing his opinion on the aforesaid recorded statements vide order dated 22.4.2004 Ld. J.M. 1st, Bareilly in the afore said case summoned the applicants to stand the trial for offences under sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC fixing 21.5.2004 for their appearance before him. It is this proceeding, which is sought to be quashed by filing of the present Criminal Miscella neous Application.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appli cants contended that the matter has been compromised and the informant now does not want to prosecute the applicants. He further contended that the ordeal of the trial procedure will be a futile effort and wastage of time of the Court. LEARNED Counsel for the applicants relied upon a judgment of Apex Court rendered in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, 2008 (63) ACC 553 (SC). He contended that since the parties do not want to litigate, the case should be closed. LEARNED Counsel for the applicants further submitted that the dispute was primarily civil in nature and therefore, no useful purpose will be served to go on with the trial procedure. Learned Counsel for the respon dent also agreed to the fact that the dispute has been compromised and the parties do not want to litigate any further.;