- (1.) INVOKING inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of cognizance dated 22-12-2008 and the entire criminal proceeding following the interim order of cognizance for the offences under Sections 323, 379 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE case before the Court below was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by the opposite party No. 2. THE allegation in the complaint petition is that the complainant had financed his vehicle in the year 2005 from Magma Leasing Finance Limited. It is alleged that in spite of assurance given by the company that he would get free registration and insurance, but due to delay in payment of the loan amount by the financier, the complainant had to incur expenses from his own pocket for insuring his vehicle. THE further allegation is that in spite of his paying monthly installments to the financier towards repayment of the loan amount regularly, the accused persons had intercepted his vehicle on 18-3-2008 and had taken the vehicle to their premises and had also illegally removed the Stepni and jack from the vehicle, worth Rs. 15,000/-. An interlocutory application vide LA. No. 1235 of 2010 has been filed on behalf of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 and the petitioner informing that the parties have compromised their dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant/opposite party No. 2 has settled his dispute with the petitioner out of Court and that consequent upon the compromise and mutual settlement, the complainant does not want to contest the case before the Court below since he has compounded the offence with the accused persons. Learned counsel submits further that the offences under Sections 323, 329 and 420 IPC are compo-undable under the provisions of Sections 320 and 322 Cr. P.C. A petition under the joint signature of the party was filed before the trial Court, but no order on the same has been passed by the learned trial Court on the ground that the accused persons have not entered their appearance in the case. Learned counsel submits further that in view of the compromise effected by and between the parties and the offences having been compounded, the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners would be bad and would be of no consequence since the trial would not end in conviction of the petitioner/accused persons for the offences. Referring to and relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab ((2008) 4 SCC 582), learned counsel submits that a Bench of this Court while relying upon the ratio decided by the Apex Court and in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, has quashed the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner.
(3.) COUNSEL for the opposite party No. 2 affirms that though, the case was instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the opposite party No. 2, but the complainant has now reconciled and an out of Court settlement has been arrived at between the complainant/opposite party No. 2 and the accused persons and the offences have been compounded by the complainant with the accused persons and therefore, the opposite party No. 2 is no more desirous to pursue his case to secure a conviction of the accused persons of the cases. I have heard counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials available on record and I find that concededly, a compromise has been effected between the disputing parties pursuant to which, the complainant/opposite party No. 2 is no more desirous to pursue with the case for securing a conviction of the accused persons. In the light of the above facts, in my opinion, no useful purpose would be served by continuance of the proceeding in the light of the compromise. Instances of similar nature where parties to the dispute even in non-compoundable offences had subsequently reconciled and entered into compromise and thereafter, had sought for quashing the criminal prosecution, came to be considered by the Supreme Court in several cases. One may refer in this context to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003 (4) SCC 675) : (AIR 2003 SC 1386) and in the more recent judgment in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot (AIR 2008 SC 1969) (supra).;