JUDGMENT

Surendra Singh-I, J.

Sri Shishir Tandon, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2, which is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shishir Tandon, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri P.P. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 21.11.2012 and all subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof of Criminal Case No. 67 of 2013 (State v. Ajay Kumar Shukla and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 417 of 2012, under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 394, 411, 120B I.P.C. and section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, P.S. Handia, district Allahabad, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 9, Allahabad.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that informant/injured opposite party no. 2, Arun Kumar Shukla son of Uma Shankar Shukla, applicant Ajay Kumar Shukla, Arun Kumar Shukla son of Girija Shankar Shukla, as well as other injured Saligram Tiwari son of Bechu Ram, Bharat Tiwari son of Bechu Ram Tiwari, Jai Singh Bhartiya son of Munni Lal Bhartiya have settled their dispute out of the court and they have filed compromise in the trial court and no dispute remains between them. He has made a prayer that the case may be disposed of according to the compromise. The applicants have attached the certified copy of the compromise/agreement of settlement as Annexure-SA1 to the supplementary affidavit. It was also prayed by way of compromise that the impugned proceeding against the applicant may be quashed in the light of compromise.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has accepted the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants regarding compromise/agreement of settlement made by the applicants.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of judgments:-

(i) B.S. Joshi v. State Of Haryana And Others, 2003 (4) ACC 675.

(ii) Gian Singh v. State Of Punjab, 2012 (10) SCC 303.

(iii) Dimpey Gujral And Others v. Union Territory Through Administrator, 2013 (11) SCC 497.

(iv) Narendra Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others, 2014 (6) SCC 466.

(v) Yogendra Yadav And Others v. State Of Jharkhand, 2014 (9) SCC 653.

7. Though Section-354 I.P.C. is a non compoundable offence but fact remains that the dispute is private in nature and the first informant (opposite party no.2), does not want to pursue the proceeding against the applicants any more.

8. Even in the cases which involved non-compoundable offences, their quashing has been approved by the Apex Court, if the nature of the offence is such which does not have grave and wider social ramifications and where the dispute is more or less confined between the litigating parties. So far as the present case is concerned, it does not involve heinous and serious offences as categorized by Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforesaid case law and that the nature and gravity and the severity of the offence which are more particularly in private dispute and differences between the parties and also does not have serious impact on society.

9. Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the trial court along with a certified copy of this order within 15 days from today and be permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise document. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification till 20.08.2023. Upon due verification