GAGANDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tersenessly, the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the core controversy involved in the present petition and emanating from the record, is that on 13.6.2010 at about 11 A.M., complainant Isha Chopra alias Eshu (respondent No.2) went to the Bus stop, Jalandhar for boarding the bus. The petitioners-accused, who were already standing there, started harassing her at the bus stand. She lodged protest in this respect. Thereafter, petitioner Rajiv Verma gave a slap on her face. She raised noise. Kulwinder Singh, security guard, intervened and arrested petitioner Rajiv Verma at the spot, while petitioner Gagandeep Singh snatched SIM card of her mobile and managed to escape from the place of occurrence. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant-respondent No.2, the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.102 dated 13.6.2010 on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 354 and 379 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Division No.7, Jalandhar, in the manner described here-in-above.

(2.) What is not disputed here is that during the course of the investigation, the good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes and entered into compromise. The complainant has filed her affidavit (Annexure P1) in this respect.

(3.) In this manner, now the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the FIR and all subsequent proceedings thereto on the basis of compromise, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia, pleading that the parties have compromised the matter. In order to substantiate the validity of the compromise, the complainant, vide her separately recorded statement, has stated that due to misunderstanding, she lodged the present case against the petitioners. They were already known to her. She has amicably settled their disputes and did not want to prosecute the petitioners. She has no objection if the FIR is quashed. She has also filed her affidavit (Annexure P1) in this context.