- (1.) THE present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Salwinder Singh @ Kulwinder Singh, Rakesh Kumar and Deepika, for quashing of FIR No. 109, dated 18.5.2011, for the offence punishable under Section 498 -A, IPC, registered at Police Station, Shahkot, Jalandhar, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise.
(2.) VIDE order dated 27.11.2013, this Court had directed the affected parties to appear on 11.12.2013 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The said Court was also directed to submit a detailed report in that regard along with copies of the statements on or before the date fixed by this Court.
(3.) IN compliance of the above, the three petitioners, namely, Salwinder Singh @ Kulwinder Singh, Rakesh Kumar and Deepika, as well as respondent No. 2, Sonu, did appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. The copies of the statements of the three petitioners have been received, but copy of the statement of respondent No. 2, Sonu, has not been received. However, the report received from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, reveals that respondent No. 2, Sonu, had also appeared before the said Court and suffered her statement with regard to the compromise. The report received from the said Court further reveals that the compromise arrived at between the private parties was voluntary one, without any pressure from any side and was not a result of coercion. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present criminal litigation has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute and due to intervention of the respectable and elderly people of the society, the private parties have sorted out their differences and effected a compromise. She further contends that petitioner No. 1, Salwinder Singh @ Kulwinder Singh, and respondent No. 2, Sonu, have joined their company and happily residing with each other. Shy further contends that all the terms and conditions of the compromise effected between the private parties have been materialized. She also states that in view of the fact that the husband and wife are residing together after effecting a compromise, therefore, pendency of the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings emanating therefrom would be sheer abuse of the process of law. In support of her contentions, she has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court delivered in the cases of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2003 2 RCR(Cri) 888, and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 4 RCR(Cri) 543.;