Court No. 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 336 of 2004 1- Ujjawal Singh S/o Shri Manorath Singh 2- Smt. Swaroop Kaur W/o Shri Ujjawal Singh Both R/o Village Mustafabad, Post Office Chhappar, District Yamuna Nagar (Hariyana) …Applicants Vs. 1- State of Uttaranchal 2- Smt. Monita Kaur, D/o Shri Charanjeet Singh, R/o 100, Govind Nagar, Race Course, Dehradun, District Dehradun …Respondents Sri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate, for the applicants. Learned A.G.A. for respondent no. 1 Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate, for respondent no. 2. Dated: February 11, 2008 Hon’ble B. C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the petitioners, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent no. 2, have sought the prayer for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2304 of 2003, Smt. Monita Kaur vs. Manjeet Singh and others, under Section 406 of IPC, pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Dehradun. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 filed a complaint against the petitioners before Special Judicial Magistrate, 1st Dehradun. Respondent no. 2 got examined himself under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and also got examined witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the petitioners. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate summoned the petitioners under Section 406 of I.P.C. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court. Respondent no. 2 has filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioners in the petition. The petitioners have also filed rejoinder affidavit reiterating the facts as stated in the writ petition. Heard Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for respondent no. 1 Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and perused the record. Having considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no abuse of process of court and no flagrant injustice has been caused to the petitioners. This Court is not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to accusation of the accused, especially when the evidence is incomplete and hazy. Any judgment rendered by me at this stage would amount to pre-trial of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that both the parties have now entered into compromise. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has also shown the copy of the order passed by Judge, Family Court, which indicates that both the parties have entered into compromise. In case, if both the parties have entered into compromise, the same fact be brought in the notice of the court concerned where the matter is pending by the parties and the court after considering this aspect that both the parties have entered into compromise, shall decide the case expeditiously and without causing any unreasonable delay. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both the petitioner are aged about 83 years and 78 years respectively and keeping in view the age of the petitioners, some lenient view be adopted in the matter of their bail applications. I accordingly direct the trial court to take a lenient view while disposing of the bail applications pertaining to the petitioners, expeditiously. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of. (B.C. Kandpal, J) SP