Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

Udham Singh @ Udaiveer vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 8 September, 2020

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

        HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

         Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 553 of 2020


Udham Singh @ Udaiveer                                      ..... Petitioner

                                     Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others                            ....Respondents


Present:-
Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, AGA for the State.
Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate for the respondent nos.


Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

Petitioner Udham Singh @ Udaiveer has filed the instant petition for quashing charge sheet dated 29.02.2020 and summoning and cognizance order dated 04.03.2020 passed in Criminal Case No. 363 of 2020, State Vs. Udham Singh @ Udaiveer, by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Roorkee, District Haridwar, on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

3. FIR in the instant case was lodged by the informant, respondent no.2. According to it, the petitioner executed a sale deed in her favour, but, subsequently it was revealed that the property was already mortgaged with some bank. After investigation, chargesheet has been submitted and it is revealed that, in fact, there were two sale deeds one in favour of informant, respondent no.2 and another in favour of Smt. Balbiri, the respondent no.3.

4. A compounding application has been filed by the parties alongwith their affidavits. Petitioner Udham Singh @ Udaiveer is present through video conferencing as identified by Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate and respondent nos.2 and 3 Smt. Geeta Devi and Smt. Balbiri have also joined through video conferencing, as identified by Mrs. Neetu Singh, Advocate. Parties have stated that they have amicably settled the dispute. The dispute is more personal in nature which has been settled, therefore, no purpose would be served if the proceedings are allowed to continue and based on amicable settlement between the parties, the petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Chargesheet dated 29.02.2020 and summoning and cognizance order dated 04.03.2020, passed in Criminal Case No. 363 of 2020, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Roorkee, District Haridwar is hereby quashed, on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties.

6. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 08.09.2020 Ujjwal 2