Rahul Chaturvedi,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
(2.) The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 02.04.2013 as well as proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 1349/12, u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Saiyadraja, District Chandauli.
(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no. 1, Shiv Kumar and opposite party no. 2 are the real brothers. It is further contended that the contesting parties have buried their difference and disputes and therefore, there is no useful purpose to be served to keep the matter alive and pending. Sri Mahesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 in the midst of the argument has submitted a short counter affidavit sworned by Tulsi, opposite party no. 2 himself whereby in paragraph nos. 3 and 4 it has been categorically acknowledged that the parties have sorted out their differences and dispute out side the court. 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.;