RAVINDER RANA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of above mentioned two petitions because in both the petitions, quashing of First Information Report (for short 'FIR) No.123 dated July 05th , 2011 (Annexure P1) registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula, is sought, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P3).

(2.) Reply has been filed by Ajmer Singh - respondent No.2/complainant in the form of an affidavit admitting the compromise. Otherwise also, he is present in person and has stated at bar that he has compromised the matter with the petitioners with the intervention of the relatives and friends. All disputes have been resolved and he does not want to prosecute the petitioners.

(3.) The dispute between the parties was of personal nature. In view of this, there should not be any impediment in allowing the parties to compromise the matter. Support to this view can be had from the authority ' Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab' 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 429 , wherein, Honourable Supreme Court has ruled that in such type of cases, where the dispute is of personal nature, Court should ordinarily, accept the compromise.