P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS application has been filed by the accused persons under Sec. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the Cr. P. C.) to quash G. R. Case No. 37 of 1997 wherein charge-sheet has been filed against the accused persons under Sees. 366, 452, 354, 171-F read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code (in short, the I. P. C" ). ( 2 ) THE only ground on which the prayer for quashing is made is that the dispute between the accused persons and the prosecution party has been amicably settled. Opp. party No. 2 is the informant and opp. party No. 3 is her husband. The offence under Sec. 354, IPC is alleged to have been committed in respect of opp. party No. 2 and the offence under Sec. 366, IPC is alleged to have been committed in respect of her husband (opp. party No. 3 ). Both opp. parties 2 and 3 have entered appearance through counsel. The petitioners have annexed the deed of compromise which had been signed by the accused persons as well as the informant and her husband in presence of several villagers. The offence under Sec. 354, IPC is compoundable with permission of the Court, whereas the other offences alleged to have been committed are not compoundable. However, from the deed of compromise as well as the affidavit of the informant which has been filed along with the petition, it is apparent that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the State has submitted that since the offences are not compoundable, it would not be in the interest of justice to quash the criminal proceeding even though the dispute seems to have been amicably settled between the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon several decisions of this Court wherein it has been stated that in appropriate cases, the High Court in exercise of power under Sec. 482, Cr. P. C. can quash a criminal proceeding on the ground of amicable settlement between the parties, even though the offences alleged to have been committed are not compoundable. ( 4 ) IT is not necessary to notice all the decisions, but reference may be appropriately made to some of the decisions highlighting such petition. In the decision reported in Sudam Charan Bank v. State and others. ( 4 ) IT is not necessary to notice all the decisions, but reference may be appropriately made to some of the decisions highlighting such petition. In the decision reported in Sudam Charan Bank v. State and others. Honble D. P. Mohapatra, J. (as his Lordship then was) quashed a criminal proceeding on the ground of amicable settlement between the parties where it had been alleged, inter alia, that offences under Secs. 307 and 452, IPC, had been committed. In Netrananda Panda and others v. Balabhadrananda Panda, the very same learned Judge while considering the question of quashing a criminal proceeding where offence under Sec. 395, IPC was alleged to have been committed, observed: Considering the facts and circumstances noted above, particularly the relationship between the parties, I am of the view that further continuance of the criminal case will be a futile exercise, waste of public time and harassment to the parties. To bring about cordial relationship between the parties and in the interest of justice I am inclined to direct closure of the case in exercise of power under Sec. 482, Cr. P. C. (Emphasis added) In Kedar Pailkray and another v. The State and others, Honble G. B. Patnaik, J. (as his Lordship then was) quashed a criminal proceeding where offence under Sec. 307, IPC had been allegedly committed on the ground that the parties had amicably settled their disputes. In the decision reported in Sudhakar Naik ad 13 others v. State and 3 others, I had the occasion to deal with some of the decisions where criminal proceedings had been quashed on the basis of amicable settlement even though the offences were compoundable. ( 5 ) IN the present case, it is evident that the dispute arose during election time due to conflict between two groups belonging to different political parties. From the deed of compromise which had been signed in presence of many of the villagers, it is evident that both parties have amicably resolved their disputes and want to live in peace and amity. From the deed of compromise which had been signed in presence of many of the villagers, it is evident that both parties have amicably resolved their disputes and want to live in peace and amity. Since the victims of the alleged offences have themselves come forward to resolve the dispute amicably, there is no possibility of securing a conviction even though the criminal proceeding is allowed to drag on and ultimately the entire process would be an exercise in futility at the cost of public exchequer as well as causing unnecessary harassment to the parties involved. Having regard to the various facts and circumstances of the case. I think in the interest of justice, it is a fit case where the criminal proceeding should be quashed. ( 6 ) THE Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed G. R. Case No. 37 of 1997, corresponding to Deogarh P. S. Case No. 19/97, in the file of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deogarh, stands quashed. Petition allowed.