K.N.Sinha, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Vivek Shandilya, learned Counsel for the revisionist, S.P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the opposite party and the learned A.G.A.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 agreed to this fact that parties have entered into compromise. The present revision has been filed for quashing of the summoning order dated 31.1.2003 and also for quashing the order dated 25.3.2003 rejecting the objection against the same.
(3.) The brief facts giving rise to the revision is that opposite party Smt. Meena was married to Pramod Kumar and on account of demand of dowry and harassment a complaint was filed by Smt. Meena against the revisionist Nos. 1 to 5 in which the summoning order was passed. The objection against the said summoning order was dismissed. Now the parties have entered into compromise and wants to live in peaceful manner hence it has been prayed that the summoning order and the complaint should be quashed. Reliance has been placed on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (46) ACC 779 and 2004 (8) Supreme 525. Ruchi Agrawal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal. In the case of R.S Joshi (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers 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.;