RAHUL CHATURVEDI,J. - (1.) Vakalatnama as well as short counter affidavit filed by Sri Mahesh Kumar Kuntal, Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 today in the Court is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
(2.) The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 16.12.2016 in connection with case crime no.496 of 2016 under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Mauranipur, District-Jhansi as well as entire proceeding of Special case no.9 of 2017 under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Mauranipur, District-Jhansi.
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the parties have come to terms and have buried their differences and disputes. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served to keep the matter alive and pending. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph no.3 to the counter affidavit by which both the parties have sorted out their differences and disputes. This fact of compromise has been confirmed and nodded in affirmative by the counsel for the opposite parties and has been jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error it would be the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in the light of the compromise. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of judgment:- (i) B.S. JOSHI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2003 (4) ACC 675. (ii) GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB 2012 (10) SCC 303. (iii) DIMPEY GUJRAL AND OTHERS VS. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR 2013 (11) SCC 697. (iv) NARENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 2014 (6) SCC 466. (v) YOGENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND 2014 (9) SCC 653. ;