- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and for the Respondent No. 2 and the learned AGA for the Respondent No. 1 and perused the record.
(2.) The Respondent No. 2 and the applicant No. 1 filed a joint affidavit and stated therein that the parties have settled their disputes and on the basis of that compromise, Deep Mala, the daughter of the Respondent No. 2 and the applicant No. 1 are living separately. The Respondent No. 2 is present in the Court and has stated that the proceedings of the criminal case maybe dropped.
(3.) The Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a compromise in regard to non-compoundable offences in the case of B. S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., 2003 4 SCC 675 and has held as follows: If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power. Thus, the High Curt on exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. The principles of law propounded in B. Section Joshi's case has been applied with approval in the case of Nikhil Merchant v. CBI and Anr., 2008 9 SCC 677.;