IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 51/2006 Sachin Wasan & Anr. …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents July 28, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State and Mr. KS Verma, Advocate for the complainant/respondent no. 2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioners have prayed for quashing the chargesheet dated 8.7.2005 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1262 of 2005, State of Uttaranchal v. Suresh Wasan & Anr. under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC pending in the Court of CJM, Dehradun. In brief, the prosecution case is that respondent no. 2 Smt. Beena Gupta had executed a power of attorney on 27.11.2004 in favour of Sachin Wasan, petitioner no. 1, who executed a sale deed on the basis of that power of attorney in favour of petitioner no. 2 Suresh Wasan, his uncle on 17.12.2004 and in sale consideration two cheques were given to the complainant Smt. Beena Gupta dated 20.12.2004 and 21.12.2004 of rupees sixteen lakhs and rupees six lakhs respectively. When these cheques were presented in the bank then it was reported by the bank that the payment of the said cheques have been stopped by the petitioners. On the basis of these averments, the respondent no. 2 has filed an FIR in the PS Kotwali Nagar, Dehradun that the petitioners have committed cheating with her and have given her post-dated cheques and thereafter stopped the payment of the said cheques. FIR was lodged on 9.4.2005. However, on the basis of the said cheques a complaint was also filed before the Magistrate on 18.2.2005. After the investigation, the police submitted chargesheet against the petitioners under Section 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC on 8.7.2005 and cognizance of offence against the petitioners was taken by the CJM, Dehradun on the same day. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the parties have entered into compromise in the aforesaid case and about the same dispute a civil suit no. 240/2005, Suresh Wasan v. Smt. Beena Gupta & Anr. is also pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dehradun in which parties have filed compromise on 14.7.2010 and on the basis of said compromise, the suite was decided on the same day in terms of the compromise. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further argued that on the basis of the averments made in the FIR and other evidence collected by the I.O., the only offence under Section 420 IPC is made out against the petitioners and the offence under Section 467, 468 and 120-B IPC is not made out against the petitioners. I find substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioners due to the reason that on perusal of the contents of FIR and other evidence collected by the I.O., there is no evidence of forgery by the petitioners. There is no allegation that the petitioners have created any false and fabricated documents with intention to cause damage or injury to the complainant. From the foresaid facts and circumstances of the case, I come to the conclusion that the essential ingredients of Section 467, 468 and 120-B IPC are missing in the FIR, on the basis of which the instant case has been registered and chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner. Hence, chargesheet dated 8.7.2005 under Section 467, 468 and 120-B IPC is liable to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed. However, chargesheet under Section 420 IPC is found to be correct and justified on the basis of the averments made in the FIR and the other oral and documentary evidence collected by the I.O. Parties have filed compounding application stating that they have entered into compromise and sought permission of this Court that their compromise may be accepted and compounding application may be allowed as the matter has been 2 settled amicably between them and now they are living peacefully. Section 320 (2) CrPC provides that offence punishable under Section 420 IPC may, with the permission of the Court, be compounded by the person cheated. Compounding application is duly supported by the affidavits of petitioner as well as the complainant/respondent no. 2 duly verified by their respective Counsel. Hence, compounding application is allowed and the compromise entered into by the parties is accepted. Accordingly, the impugned chargesheet dated 8.7.2005 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1262 of 2005, State of Uttaranchal v. Suresh Wasan & Anr. under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC pending in the Court of CJM, Dehradun is hereby quashed. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Interim order dated 12.1.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 28.7.2010 PRABODH 3