- (1.) Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is for quashing of FIR No. 135, dated 6.10.2009, under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 read with Section 34, IPC, registered at Police Station, Sector 14, Panchkula, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the judgment of conviction dated 20.1.2014 and the order of sentence dated 22.1.2014, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula, on the basis of compromise dated 7.5.2014 (Annexure P-4).
(2.) Learned counsel contends that the petitioners, namely, Ram Phal Kaushik and Sudesh Devi, are former father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant/respondent No. 2, Vaishali Sharma. He further contends that on account of incompatible behaviour, respondent No. 2 could not pull on well with her husband, Sunil (son of the petitioners) and, as such, the impugned FIR was lodged by her (respondent No. 2). The charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners and their son, Sunil. During trial, Sunil was declared as a proclaimed offender. After conclusion of the trial, both the petitioners were held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34, IPC, and each one of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year besides payment of fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default thereof to undergo further imprisonment for two months. The fine was paid by the petitioners before the learned Trial Court. He further contends that in the meantime respondent No. 2 as well as the son of the petitioners, i.e. Sunil, filed a divorce petition and the same was accepted. A decree of divorce was granted by the learned District Judge, Panchkula. He also submits that due to intervention of the respectable and elderly people of the society, the complainant/respondent No. 2 has resolved her all disputes with the petitioners and effected a compromise (Annexure P-4). He further contends that in compliance of the order dated 19.5.2014, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioners as well as respondent No. 2/complainant did appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, where the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence is pending adjudication. Both the private factions got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. The copies of their respective statements and the report from the learned first Appellate Court have been received by this Court. He further submits that in view of the compromise so effected between the private parties, the pendency of the impugned FIR and the proceedings before the learned first Appellate Court, would be sheer abuse of the process of law. He further contends that in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Sube Singh and another v. State of Haryana and another, 2013 4 RCR(Cri) 102, this Court can quash the proceedings even if pending at appellate stage.
(3.) Learned counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Balbir Singh of Police Station, Sector 14, Panchkula, and after going through the copies of the statements and the report received from the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, has no objection if the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings are quashed on the basis of the compromise.;