ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for parties, in both the petitions, through video conferencing. They have no complain with respect to the audio and video clarity and quality. 2. In both these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chandil P.S. Case No. 25 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 130 of 2005 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. Seraikella. 3. Learned counsel for the parties submits that the parties have resolved their dispute as good sense prevailed amongst them. He submits that since the parties have resolved their dispute and the offence is not heinous in nature, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the proceeding can be quashed on the basis of compromise. He submitted that sections 147 and 148 of I.P.C. is not compoundable in terms of section 320 of Cr.P.C. thus the petitioners have approached this Court. He further submits that sections 379, 323, 504 of I.P.C. in which the charge sheet has been filed is compoundable in nature. In support of his contention the petitioners relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 . 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party admits that they have resolved their dispute. 5. After going through the petitions, I find that the allegations against the petitioners is that during an election the informant was trying to occupy some place where the election agents were sitting, but the election agents did not allowed him to sit there and he was assaulted by the members of the rival group. After investigation charge sheet was submitted under sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 504 of the I.P.C. Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code admittedly are compoundable, so far as sections 147 and 148 of IPC is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another (supra) has opined that if the main offence is compoundable leniency may be shown, if the compounding petition is filed. 6. In this case, I find that the offence alleged is not heinous in nature. Further, the charge sheet was submitted under sections 323 and 504 of I.P.C. which is compoundable and sections 147 and 148 of I.P.C. which are non-compoundable. 6. In this case, I find that the offence alleged is not heinous in nature. Further, the charge sheet was submitted under sections 323 and 504 of I.P.C. which is compoundable and sections 147 and 148 of I.P.C. which are non-compoundable. Since both the parties have resolved their dispute, considering the judgment aforesaid, I am inclined to allow both these applications. 7. Both these applications are allowed. The proceedings in connection with Chandil P.S. Case No. 25 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 130 of 2005 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. Seraikella is hereby quashed and set aside. 8. Both the petitions are, thus, allowed. Petitions allowed.