IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application No. 1009 of 2009 T rilok Singh Cheema and six others. ...…………. Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ...…………. Respondents Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for respondent No. 1. Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate for respondent No. 2 / complainant. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Complainant Rajesh Kumar is present in person before this Court. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1074 of 2009, State Vs. Trilok Singh Cheema and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur. 3) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits on record. 2 4) Brief facts of the case are that three different first information reports were lodged regarding an incident relating to the reaction shown by the public due to the accidental death of one Dinesh Chand Tiwari, who was an employee of Cheema Paper Mills run by the petitioners. The Management lodged the first information report No. 57 of 2009, in respect of offences punishable under Section 147, 427, 504 of I.P.C., Anand Tiwari (brother of the deceased) lodged first information report No. 56 of 2009, relating to offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 149 and 323 of I.P.C., and respondent No. 2 Rajesh Kumar lodged first information report No. 58 of 2009, relating to offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 323 and 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In all the three first information reports, the police submitted three different charge sheets. The impugned charge sheet has been challenged by the officers of the Cheema Paper Mill on the ground that the false criminal proceedings have been initiated by respondent No. 2. It is also pleaded that no offence is made out against any of the petitioners. 5) Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 / complainant submitted before this Court that the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the court, and the respondent No. 2 does not want to prosecute the petitioners. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, 3 respondent No. 2, who is present in person before this Court, verified the fact and stated that he does not want to prosecute the petitioners. An application along with affidavit is also filed today in this Court. 6) In the above circumstances, considering the nature of the alleged offences, and the compromise entered into between the complainant and the accused / petitioners, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose is going to be served by keeping the impugned trial pending. As such, to secure the ends of justice, this petition deserves to be allowed. 7) For the reasons as discussed above, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1074 of 2009, State Vs. Trilok Singh Cheema and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, are hereby quashed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 17, 2010. H. Negi