JUDGMENT :

SHAMIM AHMED, J.

1. Heard Sri. Harish Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri. Rajendra Kumar Maury, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred seeking the quashing the charge-sheet dated 2.2.2020 submitted in Case Crime No. 328 of 2019 State of UP vs Gagan and others, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Prem Nagar, District Jhansi, cognizance taken by Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi in charge sheet dated 2.2.2020 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 11480 of 2002 pending in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the parties have entered into compromise on 15.12.2018. He further argued that in compliance of order of this Court dated 8.2.2021, the parties have appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate-1, Jhansi for verification of the compromise entered between them. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1, Jhansi vide order dated 27.7.2021 verified the compromise between the parties, therefore, the present case be finally decided.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that both the parties have come to terms and decided to part their ways. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served to keep the matter alive and pending. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 is no more interested to pursue the case any more against the applicants. This fact of compromise has confirmed and nodded in affirmative by the counsel for the parties and has jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error and would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in the light of the compromise.

5. It was further submitted by both the counsel that the parties appeared before the Court below and Court below verified the signatures of both the parties and the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Jhansi duly verified the veracity of the compromise deed vide order dated 27.7.2021.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of this Court and placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of his case:

(i) B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana and Others, 2003 (4) ACC 675

(ii) Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2012 (10) SCC 303

(iii) Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory through Administrator, 2013 (11) SCC 697

(iv) Narendra Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2014 (6) SCC 466

(v) Yogendra Yadav and Others vs. State of Jharkhand, 2014 (9) SCC 653

7. Summarizing the ratio of all the above cases the latest judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 and in paragraph no. 16, the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties. Which emerges from precedent of the subjects as follows:-

“(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

(iii) In forming an op