BIHARI LAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order, both these petitions are being disposed of together.

(2.) The only ground urged in these two petitions is about a compromise having been entered into between the accused and the complainants parties and based on such compromise the Petitioners in both these petitions have invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and pray for the quashing of the proceedings arising out of the F.I. Rs. in question. I have been informed at the Bar that the entire evidence as well as the hearing of the final arguments in both the cases are over before the trial Court and that the trial Court has only to pronounce the judgment.

(3.) In support of the contention that the proceedings in both the cases can be quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties, Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in Cr. MMO No. 37 of 2005 and Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in Cr. MMO No. 36 of 2005 have relied upon a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mahesh Chand and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 1988 AIR(SC) 2111. This judgment by a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court came to be noticed in two subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court, one in the case of Surendra Nath Mohanty and Anr. v. State of Orissa, 1999 AIR(SC) 2181, and the other in the case of Bankat and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 1 SCC 343.