JUDGMENT :

Shamim Ahmed, J.

1. Heard Shri Nuruddin Khan learned counsel for the applicants as well as Syed Shahnawaz Shah learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred seeking the quashing the entire proceedings including summoning order dated 7.5.2011 of Complaint Case No. 1047 of 2010 (Imamuddin Vs. Fakeera) under Sections 147, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Chandpur, District Bijnor pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/ Judicial Magistrate, Chandrpu District Bijnor.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the compromise between the parties has already been filed as Annexure-6 to the present petition and as the matter has been compromised on 31.8.2019 , therefore, the present case be finally decided.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that both the parties have come to terms and have buried their differences and disputes. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served to keep the matter alive and pending. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has filed an affidavit stating therein in paragraph nos. 7 & 8 that opposite party no. 2 is no more interested to pursue the case any more against the applicant. 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 Judicial Magistrate Chandpur, Bijnor duly verified the veracity of the compromise deed vide order dated 6.02.2020. Copy of the same is filed as Annexure No. SA1 to the Supplementary Affidavit.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of the Court and placed reliance of 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 AND OTHERS 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 DPARBATBHAI 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 opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

iv. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to b