- (1.) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of petitioner, namely, Hardev Singh for quashing of FIR No. 331 dated 12.12.2003 registered under Sections 406,498-A,494 IPC at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala on the basis of compromise effected between the parties on 26.11.2010, which is annexed as Annexure P-3 with the petition.
(2.) Notice of motion was issued on 17.5.2011 and respondent No.2 has also been served but inspite of service none has appeared on her behalf. The case has been adjourned on various dates but neither respondent No.2 herself has appeared nor she has been represented by any lawyer.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per terms and conditions of the compromise, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- by way of bank draft was paid to the complainant as permanent alimony, dowry articles were also returned and a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was also filed. Learned counsel further contends that the petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has been allowed and divorce on mutual basis has already been granted. Learned counsel also contends that since the amount has already been received by complainant-respondent No.2 she is not appearing in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mohd. Shamim Vs. Smt. Nahind Begum, 2005 AIR(SC) 757 and of this Court in Ravinder Kumar Kohli and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2011 5 RCR(Cri) 20, wherein, FIRs have been quashed in the absence of complainant as the complainant did not come forward to make statement on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel also submits that as per terms and conditions of the compromise, petition for quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise was to be filed but now complainant-respondent No.2 is not appearing intentionally inspite of the fact that settled amount as per compromise has been received by her and divorce has also been granted.;