Yog Raj Arora vs The State And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 865 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Agarwal, J.

1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner is seeking setting aside of order dated 26th April, 2001 passed by the court of Shri S.S. Rathi, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi summoning the petitioner as an accused for the offence punishable under Sections 420/467/471 IPC on the private complaint filed by respondent No. 2-Teka under Section 420 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was an attorney of the complainant in respect of some portion of his revenue lands and he had authority to sell the land. As per allegations while executing a sale deed in respect of the land of which he was the attorney some khasra number pertaining to three bighas and eleven biswas of land was wrongly mentioned. Assuming that the petitioner had no authority to sell that piece of land, it is submitted that after the petitioner was summoned, he explained the correct position and the matter had been sorted out. There was some clerical mistake in the revenue record which resulted into misunderstanding; the mistake was got corrected and the misunderstanding stands removed. The complainant present in the court. He is duly represented by his Advocate. The petition is duly supported by the affidavit of petitioner as well as of complainant. They are identified by their respective counsel. The offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the court. In the facts of this case, compromise is allowed. So far as the offence under Sections 467 and 471 IPC is concerned, these are not cognizable offences. Proceedings were instituted on a private complaint. The offence of cheating is the main offence. If the person cheated is satisfied and the compromise is permitted then the continuation of the complaint for the other offences would be an exercise in futility. It may not be appropriate to compel the complainant to pursue the complaint. On the contrary Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that when the proceedings have been instituted upon a complaint, and on any day fixed for hearing of the case the complaint is absent and the offence may be lawfully compounded or is not cognizable the magistrate has the discretion to dismissed the complaint at any time before the charge has been framed and discharge the accused. Admittedly, petitioners have only have summoned and charge has not been framed. I may hasten to add, if it was a case instituted on a police report, the position may have been different.

3. In view of the above since all the matters have already been compromised, I feel no useful purpose would be served by permitting further proceedings to continue. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The complaint filed by the respondent and order of summoning are quashed.

4. Petition stands disposed of.