- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
(2.) The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the petitioners and respondent have settled their disputes amicably and have decided to part with each other and have further decided to get the proceedings of Case No. 9366 of 2008 arising out of Case Crime No. 64 of 2008, under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 406 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, P.s. Mahila Thana, District Meerut quashed. A joint affidavit of petitioner no. 1, Praveen Juneja and respondent no. 2, Smt Priya Juneja has been filed in support of the compromise.
(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 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.";