- (1.) The petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of FIR No. 871, dated 28.11.2008 under Sections 498-A/406/120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Hisar City and subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise as referred to in the order dated 16.11.2011, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, vide Annexure P-2 in FAO No. 6245 of 2011. Notice of motion was issued and in compliance thereof, respondents have appeared and filed their respective replies. Learned counsel for the State submits that in terms of the reply by way of affidavit of Mukesh Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hisar, the factum of compromise between the petitioners and respondent No. 2-complainant is denied for want of knowledge. However, the factum of compromise as well as the order dated 16.11.2011, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, vide Annexure-P-2, has been admitted by respondent No. 2-complainant. She has filed her reply by way of affidavit dated 28.5.2012 in Court today, which is taken on record.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No. 2- complainant are ad idem that pursuant to the mutual compromise arrived at between the parties, Division Bench of this Court passed the order dated 16.11.2011 in FAO No. 6245 of 2011 (Rajiv Gupta Versus Dr. Rinku) (Annexure-P-2). They further submit that in view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court and also in view of the reply filed by respondent No. 2-complainant today in the Court, the impugned FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom, are liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.
(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the parties have arrived at a mutual compromise without any pressure. This material fact has been recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 16.11.2011 (Annexure-P-2). The complainant-respondent No. 2 has stated before the Division Bench of this Court that she would have no objection, if the FIR is quashed by this Court. Thus, continuation of the prosecution, in such a situation, would be nothing but a futile exercise because no chance of conviction is left. I say so because the parties have arrived at a mutual compromise without any pressure and this fact has been so recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 16.11.2011 (Annexure-P-2), passed in FAO No. 6245 of 2011.;