- (1.) THE present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Patwinder Singh, Sharanjit Kaur and Varinder Kumar, for quashing of FIR No. 91, dated 21.5.2013, for the offence punishable under Section 323 and 354 read with Section 34, IPC, registered at Police Station, Morinda, District Rupnagar, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise.
(2.) VIDE order dated 11.7.2013, 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 three petitioners and respondent No. 2/complainant prosecutrix (name concealed) did appear before the learned Court below and got recorded their 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, complainant ...(name and other particulars concealed)..., appeared in the court and got recorded separate statement that present case was got registered by her against accused Patwinder Singh son of late Pal Singh, Sharanjit Kaur wife of Patwinder Singh and Varinder Kumar son of Satish Kumar. Now, she has compromised the matter in dispute with the accused voluntarily without any pressure, threat or coercion. So, she does not want to pursue this case further. Then, above said accused, namely, Patwinder Singh son of late Pal Singh, Sharanjit Kaur wife of Patwinder Singh and Varinder Kumar son of Satish Kumar also got recorded their separate joint statement that they have heard statement of complainant, 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. The dispute between the complainant and the petitioners was that of employer and employee since the complainant was a teacher in a school and the occurrence had taken place in the premises of the school. 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) 543and 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.;