ORDER :

I.A. No. 4045 of 2020 and I.A. No. 4046 of 2020

1. Learned counsel Mr. Shailesh is present on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel Mr. Prashant Kumar is present on behalf of the opposite party No. 2. Learned counsel for the State is also present.

2. It is jointly submitted on behalf of the petitioner and on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 that one I.A. No. 4046 of 2020 has been filed jointly on behalf of the petitioner as well as the opposite party No. 2 stating therein that both the parties have resolved their dispute amicably.

3. The learned counsel for the parties have submitted that both the parties have entered into a compromise by resolving their dispute amicably once and for all willingly and voluntarily.

4. It has been pointed out that Section 380 is not compoundable in nature but since both the parties have entered into a compromise and the genesis of the dispute is purely private in nature and it has not affected the society at large, therefore, in the interest of justice, let this Cr.M.P. be allowed in terms of the compromise of settlement by quashing C.P. Case No. 1351 of 2002 under which the summons had been issued. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties relied upon the rulings of Hon’ble Apex Court where the circumstances have been set out to compound the offences which are non-compoundable in nature as under:

1. Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466

2. Yogendra Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653.

3. Gian Singh vs.State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2012)10 SCC 303

4. State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. Reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688

5. It is found that the present Cr.M.P. No. 1873 of 2011was filed in C.P. Case No. 1351 of 2002 including the order dated 25.03.2003 passed by the learned Court below wherein it has been stated that the case is made out under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and during the pendency of this petition both the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court in the interest of lasting peace and harmony and a very cordial and healthy relation has been restored between both of them.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties submitted that in view of the restoration of harmonious relationship between both the parties, let this Cr.M.P. be allowed in terms of compromise and settlement arrived at between the parties.

7. Learned A.P.P. Mr. Tapas Roy, clearly submitted that since both the parties have entered into compromise, let a suitable order be passed.

8. Further it is also found that one counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2 dated 07.07.2020 stating therein that he has entered into compromise outside the Court with the intervention of well-wishers and good feelings and harmonious relation have been restored between both of them and thus it is found that the facts of the case are squarely covered under the rulings of Hon’ble Supreme Court to all the dispute between the parties to be compounded even under section 380 of IPC which is non-compoundable in nature as under:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs.State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 laid down following principles:

“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor...............................”

59. xxx xxx xxx

60. xxx xxx xxx

“61. …the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the of