Manju Rani Chauhan,J. - (1.) Supplementary affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the applicants today in the Court, is taken on record. Heard Mr. Harish Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Maury, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. Perused the record. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 07.08.2020 and cognizance order dated 27.07.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 73 of 2020 (State vs. Arvind and others), under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Kotawali, District- Jhansi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi on the basis of compromise between the parties. On the matter being taken up, on 10.11.2020 the Court passed following order:- 'Mr. Rajendra Prasad Maurya, learned counsel states that he has filed a joint affidavit and his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today in the Registry. Office is directed to trace the same and place it on record. Heard Mr. Harish Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Maurya, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 07.08.2020 and cognizance order dated 27.07.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 73 of 2020 (State vs. Arvind and others), under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District-Jhansi, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the charge sheet had been submitted, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them which has been reduced in writing, copy of compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure no.4 to this application, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submissions so advanced by learned counsel for the applicants. Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order on the next date fixed and be permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise document, which is annexed as Annexure no.4 to this application. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification within a period of one month from today. Upon due verification, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court. Put up on 15th January, 2021 as fresh. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. When the case is listed next, the name of Mr. Rajendra Prasad Maurya shall be shown in the cause list as counsel for the opposite party no.2.' Pursuant to aforesaid order dated 10.11.2020, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi has passed the order dated 04.12.2020 verifying the compromise deed after ensuing presence of the parties, certified copy of the order dated 04.12.2020 along with compromise application has been annexed as Annexure no.S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit in support of this application. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicant in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 do not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, the opposite party no.2 has no grievance and has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants. Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases: 1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675, 2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677, 3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, 4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303, 5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466, In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278. in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute. Accordingly, the charge sheet dated 07.08.2020 and cognizance order dated 27.07.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 73 of 2020 (State vs. Arvind and others), under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Kotawali, District- Jhansi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi, are hereby quashed. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith. ;