PURSHOTTAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel R.R. Vyas for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri J.B. Jaiswal for respondent No. 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioners are accused in Regular Criminal Case No. 237/2008 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajura. They are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 324 read with Section 34 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence punishable under Section 326 is not a compoundable. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were injured in the alleged incident. Respondent No. 2 Sau. Sangita Nikhade, who is wife of respondent No. 3, was the complainant. The petitioners and respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are present before the Court. It is stated by them that they have resolved the issue amicably out of the Court. It is stated by respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 that they do not want to proceed further against the petitioners as their relations with the petitioners are cordial. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri J.B. Jaiswal appearing for respondent No. 1 has no objection if the proceedings are quashed. In view of the development, which had taken place later on following amicable settlement of the dispute, I am inclined to grant the relief as prayed.