MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) BY way of this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner, the accused in FIR No.111 dated 14.09.2010 (Annexure P -1) recorded under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station, Navi Baradari, District Jalandhar, seeks quashing of the aforesaid FIR by stating that the matter has been amicably settled between her and complainant/respondent No.2 as evidenced by compromise dated 30.09.2013 (Annexure P -2).
(2.) THE afore -stated FIR was recorded on the statement of respondent No.2, wherein he had alleged that he was cheated by the petitioner by executing a sale deed of the property of a dead person in favour of his wife and son. Now, the said respondent has sworn an affidavit dated 14.01.2014, wherein it has been stated that with the intervention of respectables, he has settled the matter with the petitioner. The compromise, Annexure P -2, contains a clause to the following effect: - "2. That the respectable, relatives and friends of both the parties of the have intervened and got the matter settled up. The party of the second part has got the sale deed of the plot executed in favour of Surjeet Singh 1st party through his attorney Sh. Onkar s/o Wariam Singh R/o Village Doburji, Jalandhar and the party of 1st part has agreed and felt satisfied with the execution of the sale deed in their favour vide document No.3426/1 dated 30.9.13. That the party of 1st part now does not want to 3. proceed further with the above mentioned case and party of 1st part has no objection if the above said F.I.R. is quashed and Krishna Kumari is acquitted." Vide order dated 14.01.2014, the learned trial Court was directed to examine the parties concerned and submit a report as to whether the compromise is outcome of free will and consent of the parties and is free from any undue influence/pressure/coercion. A report dated 06.02.2014 has been received from the learned trial Court, wherein it has been specifically stated that the compromise is without any undue influence/pressure/coercion and is voluntary.
(3.) THE complainant is present in Court, through her counsel, and owns the compromise. Even though, it is stated by the learned State Counsel that the compromise is not in the knowledge of the State yet the learned State Counsel has no objection to quashing of the aforesaid FIR. .;