Judgment : Affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent no. 2 is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Agni, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1 and Mr. Agrawal, learned Counsel for respondent no. 2. 3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents waive service of notice. By consent, heard forthwith. 5. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24/09/2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Vasco-da-Gama whereby the application dated 19/09/2013 filed by the concerned parties to compound the offence was rejected. The petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the said order and allow the application dated 19/9/2013 for compounding the offence and to quash and set aside the proceedings in C.C. No. 74/S/13/A, before the Judicial Magistrate First class at Vasco. 6. Respondent no. 2 had lodged a complaint at Vasco Police Station alleging that on 08/08/2011 at 17.40 hours, the petitioner assaulted him with some sharp object on his back and left hand and caused injury to him, after which he was taken for treatment to Pai Hospital at Vadem. Vasco police registered FIR No. 126/2011 on 09/08/2011 against the petitioner, for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC'). According to the petitioner, respondent no. 2 had filed an application with Vasco Police stating that the matter was amicably settled and that respondent no. 2 was not interested in pursuing the matter and wanted to withdraw the complaint. It is further alleged that in spite of the said application dated 10/08/2011 filed by respondent no. 2 for withdrawal of the complaint, respondent no.1 had proceeded to file the charge sheet which culminated into Criminal Case No.74/S/2013/A before the learned Magistrate at Vasco. 7. The petitioner and respondent no.2 moved a joint application dated 19/09/2013 before the learned Magistrate for compounding the offence on the ground that they have settled the matter amicably amongst themselves, since they were good friends and reside in the same locality and would maintain peace in future. 8. Since the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC is not compoundable, the said application came to be dismissed. Legally, no grievance can be made against the impugned order dated 24/9/2013 passed by the learned Magistrate, since the said offence is not compoundable. 9. 8. Since the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC is not compoundable, the said application came to be dismissed. Legally, no grievance can be made against the impugned order dated 24/9/2013 passed by the learned Magistrate, since the said offence is not compoundable. 9. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab” [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ] in which the Apex Court has indicated parameters and guidelines in order to ensure the compounding of cases by exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the High Courts. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble three Judges' bench of the Apex Court has observed various situations wherein such powers are to be exercised and if the Courts come to a primary conclusion that there will not be ultimate purpose to continue with criminal proceeding and it would tantamount to abuse of the process. He further relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Aurangabad Bench of this Court, in the case of “Babasaheb s/o Ramchandra Sirsat Vs. The State of Maharashtra” [2013 ALL MR (Cri) 2454] in which the learned Single Judge, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in “Gyan Singh” (supra) allowed composition of the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. The learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 urged that this is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and allow the parties to compound the offence. 10. Respondent no. 2, who is the injured person, is present before this Court and he has filed affidavit-in-reply wherein he has specifically stated that the petitioner and he are known to each other, being musicians by profession and close friends for the last about 6 years and that he is not interested in pursuing his complaint or the criminal case and that he has no objection if the proceedings are compounded. He has confirmed that they had filed a joint application dated 19/9/2013 before the learned Magistrate for compounding the offence on the ground that they had settled the matter amicably. Since the concerned parties have settled the matter amicably, I am satisfied that no purpose would be served by continuing with the criminal proceedings. He has confirmed that they had filed a joint application dated 19/9/2013 before the learned Magistrate for compounding the offence on the ground that they had settled the matter amicably. Since the concerned parties have settled the matter amicably, I am satisfied that no purpose would be served by continuing with the criminal proceedings. Learned Public Prosecutor has no objection to the composition of the offence by the parties. 11. In view of the above, leave is granted to the petitioner and respondent no. 2 to compound the offence. 12. In the result, the petition is allowed. (a) The offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC in Criminal Case No. 74/S/2013/A stands compounded and the petitioner stands acquitted of the said offence as a result of composition. The said criminal proceedings therefore stand closed. 13. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. 14. The petition stands disposed of.