SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 the petitioners herein have approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 04.12.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Siwana, District Barmer in Criminal Case No.170/2010 whereby, the learned Trial Judge directed framing of charge against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC.
(2.) Quashment of the impugned order and all subsequent proceedings is sought on the ground that the respondent No.2 complainant, who was married to petitioner No.3 Santosh Kumar @ Praveen Kumar Chopra, voluntarily entered into a compromise with the petitioner No.3 before the competent court at Bijapur (Karnataka) in proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 and also got culminated the marriage between the parties through mutual consent under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. While signing the joint memo submitted in the Family court at Bijapur, the respondent Madhu Devi clearly agreed that she would get the proceedings of the present Criminal Case No.170/2010 withdrawn through compromise. A consolidated amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- was paid by the petitioner Santosh Kumar to the respondent complainant Mst. Madhu by way of permanent alimony while executing the compromise.
(3.) On the previous date of hearing, Shri Sidharth Joshi, learned counsel representing the complainant, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel and prayed for time to keep his client present in the court. He urged that there is clear interpolation in the joint compromise memo on the strength whereof, the petitioners seek quashing of the proceedings and the lines relating to the withdrawal of the instant case have been inserted posteriorly by sheer forgery. He thus urged that the compromise cannot be acted upon and the parties may be directed to remain present in the Court so as to verify the factum of compromise. The said submission of Shri Joshi was considered justified and thus, the learned counsel was directed to keep their clients present in the Court.;