- (1.) It is submitted by the learned Advocate of the petitioners as also the learned Advocate of the complainant/opposite party No. 1 that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and they do not want to proceed any further with the revisional application. An application has been filed for recording compromise affirmed by both the parties.
(2.) It is submitted by the learned Advocate of the complainant/ opposite party No. 1 that the complainant has received the entire amount involved in the present case from the accused persons and as such, he is not willing to proceed any further with the present G. R. Case No. 215 of 2000.
(3.) The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2003 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter (SC) 498 (B. S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.). In the said judgment, it was held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent power can quash a criminal proceedings of F.I.R. or complaint where the dispute has been settled between the parties, although offences are non-compoundable, and Section 320, Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482, Cr.RC.;