ARUNKUMAR AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 present before the Court. Respective counsels also present, identified their parties. The learned High Court Govt. Pleader is appearing for the first respondent.

(2.) A memorandum of understanding is filed before the Court stating that both the parties, i.e. first petitioner and 2nd respondent are the husband and wife and their marriage took place long back and due to their mis -understanding, the parties have been fighting against each other in different courts. Subsequently at the intervention of elders of the family, they amicably resolved their litigations in various courts pending since last two years. It is also agreed and accepted in the said memorandum of understanding that a case is pending before II Addl. Civil Judge (JD) & JMFC Kalaburagi in C.C. No. 4012/2012 is also amicably settled between the parties. The wife, who is present before the Court has absolutely no objection to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 4012/2012 in view of the compromise terms entered into between the parties.

(3.) IT is worth to refer a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in : 2012 (10) SCC P -303 between Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the provisions of Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., held that in appropriate cases, where the trial Court cannot record the compromise between the parties U/Sec. 320 Cr.P.C., but the High Court can exercise the powers U/Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., and direct the parties to compound the offences even though they are non compoundable in nature and quash the criminal cases between the parties in order to give effect to the compromise between the parties and enable them to live happily in their future life. It is held in the said judgment, as: - -