- (1.) THE present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Brij Lal and Kuldeep, for quashing of FIR No. 190, dated 13.9.2012, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498 -A and 506, IPC, registered at Police Station, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise.
(2.) VIDE order dated 13.12.2013, this Court had directed the affected parties to appear on 20.12.2013 before the learned Trial Court, 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, both the petitioners, namely, Brij Lal and Kuldeep, as well as respondent No. 2, Rekha, did appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon, and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. The statements suffered by the private parties have been received along with the report from the learned Court below. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on account of a usual bickering in the house, respondent No. 2 - complainant became annoyed and lodged the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498 -A and 506, IPC. He further submits that due to intervention of the respectable and elderly people of the society, the private parties have sorted out their differences and effected a compromise and now all of them are living together happily. He 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 his contentions, he 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.;