HARMOHINDER KAUR SANDHU,J - (1.) SMT . Phoola Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the petitioners for offences under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that petitioners No-. 1 to 3 who were the sons of her brother filed a civil suit about some land against her and her brother Ram Chander petitioner No. 4. They wanted to obtain a consent decree against her. They produced Ms. Raj Bala petitioner No. 5 who impersonated herself as Phoola and filed a written statement and vakalatnama in court through Narinder Ramni her counsel. She also made a statement in court representing herself as Phoola in the presence of other petitioners and everything was done by all the petitioners in order to cause injury and loss to her by depriving her of valuable property. This complaint was sent by Judicial Magistrate, Panipat to Police Station Panipat for registration of the case under Section 156(3) CrPC. After investigation of the case challan was presented in court and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat charged the petitioners for offences under Section 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the First Information Report No. 199 dated 23.2.1991 registered on the basis of the complaint Annexure P-1 and summoning order charge-sheet dated 30.1.1992.
(2.) THE parties who are close relatives have effected compromise and an application was filed by the petitioners for grant of sanction to effect the compromise. Compromise deed was also placed on record. The parties appeared in court and admitted the factum of compromise. In the compromise deed Phoola respondent No. 2 has stated that a family settlement had been effected between the parties amicably as the parties were closely related and she had no grievance against her brother Ram Chander and his sons. She did not want to pursue the case registered against the petitioners at her instance. In the instant case although petitioners No. 1 to 3 filed a civil suit regarding some property against their father petitioner No. 4, and father's sister Smt Phoola but that suit was withdrawn and no decree was passed in favour of petitioners No. 1 to 3 as is evident from Annexure PA. Petitioners No. 1 to 3 are nephew and petitioner No. 4 is the brother of respondent No. 2. They have amicably settled the dispute regarding the property and Phoola does not want to pursue the case against the petitioners. Although the offence with which the petitioners have been charged are not compoundable yet considering the fact that the parties had buried the hatchet by settling all disputes amicably, I feel that continuation of proceedings in the courts specially when Smt Phoola is not likely to support the averments made by her, will not be in the interest of justice and will rather amount to abuse of the process of the court.
(3.) AS a result I allow this petition and quash First Information Report No. 199 dated 23.2.1991 registered at Police Station City Panipat on the basis complaint Annexure P-1 as well as chargesheet Annexure P3 and all subsequent proceedings. Petition allowed.;