VIJAY CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner Ramesh Chand for quashing of FIR No 424 dated 31.12.2008 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sector 10, Gurgaon and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

(2.) NOTICE of motion was issued on 29th January, 2010. Vide order dated 4th February, 2011, parties were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements with regard to compromise and the Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to record statements of both the parties to its satisfaction to know its genuineness that the statements are not the result of any pressure or coercion in any manner. It was also directed to send report along with statements of the parties with regard to validity or otherwise of the compromise effected between the parties. In compliance of the directions issued by this Court, the parties appeared before theIllaqa Magistrate and their statements were recorded. A report in this regard has been sent by the Illaqa Magistrate along with statement of the complainant. The complainant has stated that he has no objection in quashing of the FIR. It has also been mentioned in the report that the compromise between the parties was voluntary and there was no pressure or coercion on either of the party.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that continuation of impugned criminal proceedings between the parties would be an exercise in futility. The complainant himself does not want to pursue these proceedings and it shall be merely a formality and sheer wastage of precious time of the Court as complainant would not support the case of prosecution in view of compromise between the parties. It would be in the interest of the parties as well as in the large interest of the society and to maintain peace and harmony and in order to save both the families from avoidable litigation that the compromise arrived at between them is accepted by this Court.