MANOJ Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Ashok Kumar Maurya, Advocate, has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 which is taken on record.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that since the contesting parties have buried their difference and disputes and therefore, there is no useful purpose to be served to keep the matter alive and pending. The learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to annexure-6 a compromise arises between the contesting parties by which both the parties have sorted out their differences and dispute out side the court. 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 it would be the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in the light of the compromise.

(3.) Taking the help of these guidelines, keeping in view the nature and gravity and the severity of the offence which are more particularly in private dispute and differences it is deem proper and meet to the ends of justice. The proceeding of the aforementioned case be quashed.