MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Sukesh Kumar, Advocate filed his Vakalatnama along with short counter affidavit sweared by opposite party no.2 namely Manish Kumar, which is taken on record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that 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 the applicants has drawn my attention to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the short counter affidavit, wherein the opposite party no.2 has categorically stated that the parties have entered into compromise and have sorted out their differences and disputes. It has been contended by the counsel that besides the present criminal case there are two suits pending between the same parties which were decided in terms of compromise dated 09.10.2019. It has been stated by the counsel that the opposite party no.2 did not want to contest the matter any more against the applicants. This fact of compromise has been confirmed and nodded in affirmative by the counsel for the opposite parties and has been 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.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of judgments:-