- (1.) THE present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., has been filed by Rajni Bala and six others for quashing of a crossversion registered vide DDR No. 12, dated 24.5.2013, for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 323 and 452 read with Section 149, IPC, arising out of FIR No. 91, dated 21.5.2013, under Sections 323 and 354 read with Section 34, IPC, registered at Police Station, Morinda, District Rupnagar, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise.
(2.) VIDE order dated 3.7.2013, the affected parties were directed to appear before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The said Court was also directed to verify the fact as to whether the compromise so effected between the parties was genuine and valid one.
(3.) IN compliance of the above, all the seven petitioners and respondent No. 2, Patwinder Singh, did appear before the learned Court below and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the compromise. The report received from the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar, reads as under: " It is submitted that on 15.7.2013, Patwinder Singh son of late Pal Singh, resident of Village Saheri, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar, appeared in the court and got recorded separate statement that present case was got registered by him against accused Rajni Bala daughter of Sohan Lal, Ashwani son of Madan Lal, Tinku alias Bhupinder son of Shiv Kumar, Mohit Agnihotri alias Monu son of Pawan Kumar, Nini alias Ninipal son of Sant Ram, Sonu son of Pawan Kumar and Rajesh Kumar son of Om Parkash. Now, he has compromised the matter in dispute with the accused voluntarily without any pressure, threat or coercion. So, he does not want to pursue this case further. Then, above said accused namely Rajni Bala daughter of Sohan Lal, Ashwani son of Madan Lal, Tinku alias Bhupinder son of Shiv Kumar, Mohit Agnihotri alias Monu son of Pawan Kumar, Nini alias Ninipal son of Sant Ram, Sonu son of Pawan Kumar and Rajesh Kumar son of Om Parkash also got recorded their separate joint statement that they have heard statement of complainant Patwinder Singh, which is correct and the matter in dispute has been compromised between them. In these circumstances, it seems that genuine compromise has been effected between the parties. Hence, the present report submitted please." Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is a case of version and cross -version. He further submits that respondent No. 2 -complainant was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 354 read with Section 34, IPC. Respondent No. 2 being the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the school had lodged the report against the petitioners. He further submits that in view of the compromise pendency of the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom would be sheer abuse of the process of law since the chances of ultimate conviction and sentence of the petitioners are bleak. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 4 RCR(Cri) 543 and that of a 5 - Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 3 RCR(Cri) 1052.;