KANT TRIPATHI,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the respondent no. 1 and perused the record.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in this case the mediation has succeeded and the applicants and the respondent no. 2 have settled their disputes and differences and executed a written compromise before the mediation centre whereby the respondent no. 2 has agreed for quashing the proceedings of the case crime no. 238 of 2008, under section 323, 307, 498-A, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura. 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 others vs. State of Haryana and another (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."
(3.) THE principles of law propounded in B. S. Joshi's case (supra) has been applied with approval in the case of Nikhil Merchant v. CBI and another (2008) 9 SCC 650.;