JUDGMENT - JOSHI A.H., J.: -Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. 2. This is an application under section 482 Cri.P.C. filed by the original complainant Nisha w/o Sanjay Goswami. Respondent No. 2 is her father and she had married against the wishes of her father. She had reported that she was assaulted be her father by knife and offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered which ultimately resulted in investigation and filing of charge-sheet and commencement of Session Trial No. 16 of 1997. 3. During the pendency of Session trial, much water has flown and complainant/applicant is cohabiting with her husband and has been blessed with a child. 4. In the meanwhile, relations between applicant and her father have improved and they have compounded in true sense of the term. In view of the fact that their relations have become cordial and no animus or enmity between them have remained, the complainant submitted application before the trial Court jointly with the respondent No. 2 praying that the sessions trial may be disposed of by permitting the parties to record the compounding. The said application was rejected the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 2/3-1-2004. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge found that admittedly, the offence was non-compoundable and the reliance placed by the parties on the judgment in (Sarjerao Dhas v. State of Maharashtra)1, 2003 Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 1521 referred to inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 482 Cri.P.C. while he did not possess any such powers. 5. In order to overcome the situation, the Counsel appearing on both sides have relied upon various judgments, namely, in the case of (Ram Prasad another v. State of U.P.)2, 1982(2) S.C.C. 149 ; (Mahesh Chand another v. State of Rajasthan)3, 1991 S.C.C.(Cri.) 159 (Salim other v. State of M.P.)4, 1995 Supp(4) S.C.C. 631; (Gurcharan Singh v. State another)5, 1998 Cri.L.J. 37880; (Sarjerao Shamrao Dhas others v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 All.M.R.(Cri.) 219 and (Sobha Mehra another v. State of Haryana another)6, 2004 Cri.L.J. NOC 92. 6. 6. All these judgments have been relied upon by the learned Counsel for parties in order to demonstrate that if the matter is of exceptional nature and the purpose of trial, conviction and sentences is not likely to be served and the parties have in reality patched up the differences, in order to advance the cause of justice, it would not be proper to proceed with the trial in such cases. 7. In (State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy others)7, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1489, it has been laid down by the Apex Court that in the exercise of wholesome power under section 482 Cri.P.C. the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice requires that the proceeding ought to be quashed. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances, what must have happened in the present case in that it was the anguish of the accused that resulted into commission of the act of assault which even appeared to police to be act of attempt to murder. However, due to passage of time, wise Counsel must have prevailed upon him and he seems to have involved himself in compounding the situation and accepted the fact of life. Now as has been brought before this Court on record, not only by way of present application but also on affidavit filed by the respondent stating that "there does not exist strain and stress any more in between him and his daughter (applicant). They have settled the matter with each other and have patched up differences. That, he has accepted the marriage of his daughter and both of them are having visiting and cordial relations with each other". 9. In view of the above, I see no reason to allow the trial to continue when the victim herself has come forward with an attitude of forget and forgive and there is hardly any perceivable chance of her supporting the prosecution. Accused/respondent No. 2 in addition to having filed affidavit, is present in person and reiterates that now no grudge remains between him applicant and they have decided to live with amity. 10. Accused/respondent No. 2 in addition to having filed affidavit, is present in person and reiterates that now no grudge remains between him applicant and they have decided to live with amity. 10. In the result, I am satisfied that the application for compounding which was filed before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur is required to be granted. Though the learned Additional Sessions Judge was within his jurisdiction in rejecting the application, the order needs to be substituted by quashing it and quashing the proceeding of Sessions trial itself as its result. 11. Hence, the following order. The order dated 2/3-1-2004 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 1997 below application (Exhibit 62) is hereby quashed and set aside. Application (Exhibit 62) filed by the parties is allowed. All further proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 16 of 1997 are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Application allowed. -----