- (1.) THIS petition has been filed by petitioners Kulwinder Singh and Satpal Singh under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.159 dated 26.12.2009 (Annexure -P.1) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 336, 447, 511, 427, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Rahon, District S.B.S. Nagar and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom as in view of the compromise dated 6.2.2010 (Annexure -P.3) and affidavit (Annexure -P.4), petitioner No.2 had by giving the statement (Annexure -P.5) withdrawn his complaint dated 30.12.2009 (Annexure -P.2) as is clear from the inquiry report dated 16.2.2010 (Anneuxre -P.6) and respondent No.2 after having taken benefit of the said compromise has backtracked from the same as is apparent from the statement (Annexure -P.8).
(2.) IN the petition, it is stated that respondent No.2 -Balbir Singh got registered the FIR (Annexure -P.1) against the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 had given a detailed complaint to Senior Superintendent of Police, which is Annexure -P.2. It is stated that as per Annexure -P.2, a request was made for registration of criminal case against respondent No.2 and his accomplices for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 452, 427, 336, 511, 506, 504, 148 and 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. A compromise dated 6.2.2010 (Annexure -P.3) was effected between the parties. Affidavit dated 4.10.2010 of respondent No.2 is Annexure -P - 4. Since the matter had been compromised, petitioner No.2 made a statement in the complaint filed by him that he does not want that any action be initiated on his complaint. His statement is Annexure -P.5. Detailed report of the Police is Annexure -P.6. Cancellation report dated 2.11.2010, on the basis of compromise was filed, which is Annexure -P.7, but respondent No.2 has backtracked from the compromise and his statement is Annexure -P.8.
(3.) LEARNED Judicial Magistrate Ist Class passed order (Annexure -P.9). It is also stated that the impugned order as well as the entire proceedings deserve to be quashed. Separate replies have been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and No.2 and they contested the petition. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as respondent No.2 has retracted from the compromise after taking the benefit, which is clear from the documents placed on record, therefore, on this ground quashing can be allowed. He next argued that petitioner No.2 has withdrawn his complaint against respondent No.2 and after taking the benefit, respondent No.2 had given the statement before the Court in cancellation proceedings that he wants to pursue with the matter and this statement is to harass the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that even on merits, in the FIR. no Khasra number had been given. Prima facie, respondent No.2 is to show that he is in possession. No rent deed or sale deed has been placed on record. The order passed by the Magistrate for further proper investigation of the matter is also not as per law.;