RAJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and for the Respondent No. 2 and the learned AGA for the Respondent No. 1 and perused the record.

(2.) The Respondent No. 2 and the applicant No. 1 filed a joint affidavit and stated therein that the parties have settled their disputes and on the basis of that compromise, Deep Mala, the daughter of the Respondent No. 2 and the applicant No. 1 are living separately. The Respondent No. 2 is present in the Court and has stated that the proceedings of the criminal case maybe dropped.

(3.) The Apex Court has dealt with the consequence of a compromise in regard to non-compoundable offences in the case of B. S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., 2003 4 SCC 675 and has held as follows: