JUDGMENT 1. - In pursuance of the order passed in morning session, statements of Dinesh Kumar, the petitioner, and of Mr. Sunil Kumar, the complainant-respondent No.2, have been recorded by the Deputy Registrar (Judl.). 2. As per statement made by Sunil Kumar, the complainant, he knew Dinesh Kumar, the accused-petitioner. About five years back in January, 2008, when he was going to his home in the night, he was intercepted by a boy near Maharaja College, Jaipur who caught hold of him and assaulted him. He informed about this incident to a PCR Van standing nearby the place of incidence. The police arrested the boy. He further informed that his sweater was not snatched by anyone, but it fell down automatically. A report about the said incident was registered at Police Station Lalkothi, Jaipur where a formal FIR, namely FIR No.21/2008 was registered for offence under Sections 323, 341, 327 IPC. Now, he has entered into a compromise with the accused-petitioner, and he no longer wishes to pursue the criminal proceedings against the accused-petitioner. 3. Similar statement has been made by the accused-petitioner, Dinesh Kumar. 4. As per averments made in the petition, the accused-petitioner and the complainant-respondent No.2 both were students and are close friends. On account of some misunderstanding, the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged by the complainant. Now, both of them have settled their disputes amicably and the complainant does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. They had submitted a compromise before the learned trial court. While the learned trial court has compounded the offence under Section 323 IPC, it has refused to do so for offences under Sections 327 and 341 IPC. Therefore, prayer has been made to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 5. In the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2012(9) SCC 427 : 2012 (4) Criminal Court Cases 774 (SC) : 2012 (3) Apex Court Judgments 732 (SC) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that in case the offence happens to be more of a private nature, rather than a pubic one, and in case the parties were to compromise their differences, then this court, in its inherent jurisdiction, can quash the criminal proceedings even for the non-compoundable offence and acquit the accused person. 6. 6. Considering the fact that the parties have compromised their differences, considering the statement given by Sunil Kumar, the complainant, that he does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against the present petitioner, considering the fact that the offence happens to be more of a private nature, rather than a pubic one, considering the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra), this court quashes the criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan in the form of Criminal Case No. 106/08, State v. Dinesh Kumar , against the petitioner and acquits him of the offences under Sections 327, 341 IPC. 7. The petition is disposed of accordingly. The stay application is also disposed of. *******