JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vineet Saran, J.—Heard Sri V.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants appearing in Application under Section 482 No. 824 of 2010 and for the private respondents in Application under Section 482 No. 825 of 2010 as well as Sri R.K. Sahi, learned counsel for the applicants appearing in Application under Section 482 No. 825 of 2010 and for the private respondents in Application under Section 482 No. 824 of 2010, as well as learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents in both the cases. 2. On a complaint lodged by Sri Rajesh Kumar Gupta against Satya Narayain and others, a criminal case was filed, which was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, IPC on the basis of which Sessions Trial No. 367 of 2004 (State v. Satya Narain and others) is pending before the ADJ/FTC-2, Kushi Nagar at Padrauna. A cross case has also been filed by Satya Narain against Rajesh Kumar Gupta and others, which was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504, 506, IPC on the bais of which Sessions Trial No. 369 of 2004 (State v. Rajesh and others) is pending before the ADJ/FTC-2, Kushi Nagar at Padrauna. 3. It has been stated that both the parties have entered into a compromise and thus a prayer has been made in both the cases for quashing the proceedings pending before the Trial Court. On the last occasion, by order dated 21.1.2010, this Court had directed the Trial Court to send its report regarding the authenticity of the compromise. Today, certified copies of two separate orders of the Trial Court dated 8.2.2010 have been placed before me (which are taken on record) in which the Trial Court has stated that all the parties have accepted that they have entered into a compromise and verified the correctness of the compromise filed before the Trial Court, a copy of which has also been filed along with this petition. 4. Learned counsel for both the parties have jointly submitted that although the offence for which the applicants in both the cases are charged, may be non-compoundable but still in the interest of justice, as the parties have entered into the compromise and there is absolutely no public policy involved against accused persons, in the light of the compromise no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings. In support of their submission, both the parties have placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Manoj v. State of M.P., 2009(64) ACC 474 and Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, 2008 (63) ACC 553 as well as decision of this Court in the case of Kalim Ahmad @ Anwar Miyan v. State of U.P., 2009 (64) ACC 781. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case and also keeping in view that since both the parties have entered into a compromise and they do not wish to further litigate the matter, in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, in my opinion, mere technicality of law should not come in the way of such criminal trials coming to an end. 6. As such, exercising inherent powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C., this Court directs that proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 367 of 2004 (State v. Satya Narain and others) pending in the Court of ADJ/FTC-II, Kushi Nagar at Padrauna and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 369 of 2004 (State v. Rajesh and others) pending in the Court of ADJ/FTC-II, Kushi Nagar at Padrauna are quashed. 7. Accordingly, both the petitions stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ————