Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1318 (ALL)

Sudhindra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2024-05-15

VIVEK VARMA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Ms Ruchita Jain, counsel for the opposite no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no.1. 2. The present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet No.5/1997, dated 07.12.1997 as well as the cognizance/summoning order dated 06.03.1998 and the entire proceedings of case No.131 of 1998 (State vs. Babulal & others), arising out of Case Crime No.134A of 1997, under Sections 452, 323, 325, 504, 506, 336 IPC, Police Station Sakrar, District-Jhansi, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Mauranipur, District Jhansi. 3. Counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature. Further, during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them, copy of the compromise deed dated 01.03.2024 has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the affidavit, wherein it has been mentioned that opposite party no.2 does not want to press the case. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the Court concerned and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of process of law. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that he has no objection if the proceedings are quashed. 5. Learned AGA, however, submits that it is the trial court, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicants may approach the trial court and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law. 6. In view of above, the parties including the injured are directed to appear before the trial court along with compromise deed as well certified copy of this order within three weeks from today. 6. In view of above, the parties including the injured are directed to appear before the trial court along with compromise deed as well certified copy of this order within three weeks from today. It is expected that trial Court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of the parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the trial Court shall also record the statements of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not. 7. The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings. 8. Till verification of compromise between the parties by the trial court, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. 9. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.